Action brought on 9 October 2020 — MV v Commission

(Case T-624/20)

(2020/C 443/26)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: MV (represented by: G. Pandey, D. Rovetta and V. Villante, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision of 30 June 2020 of the European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) which rejected the applicant’s complaint under Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union, lodged on 27 January 2020, including the rejection of the applicant’s request for EUR 50 000 compensation;

— annul the decision of 29 October 2019 of the European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO)/Selection Board rejecting the applicant’s request for review of the decision of the Selection Board not to admit him to the next phase of the competition;

— annul the decision of 5 June 2019 at the online EPSO account not to include the applicant in the draft list of officials selected for the purposes of the competition under the EPSO/AD/364/19 — 3-Security officers;

— annul the open notice of competition EPSO/AD/364/19 — 3-Security officers, published on 24 January 2019, and, in its entirety, the resulting draft list of officials selected to take part in the aforesaid competition;

— in addition: — as a preliminary matter, where appropriate, declare Article 90 of the Staff Regulations invalid and inapplicable in the present proceedings under Article 270 TFEU; — order the requested measures of inquiry, as raised in the present application; — order the European Commission to bear its own and the applicant’s legal costs of the present judicial proceedings; — order the defendant to pay the applicant EUR 50 000 compensation for the damaged incurred because of the above unlawful contested decisions.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law.

1. First plea in law, alleging manifest error of assessment by EPSO/the Selection Board concerning evaluation of the working experience of the applicant — breach of Annex II to the notice of competition at issue detailing the required working experience.

2. Second plea in law, alleging breach of Articles 1, 2, 3 and 4 of Council Regulation No 1 of 15 April 1958 (1), together with breach of Articles 1d and 28 of the Staff Regulations and Article 1(1)(f) to Annex III to the Staff Regulations, breach of the principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination, and also alleging a plea of illegality of the notice of competition under Article 277 TFEU.

3. Third plea in law, alleging a plea of illegality under Article 277 TFEU of the Talent Screener and of point 2.4 of the General Rules governing open competitions as well as of Article 5 of Annex III to the Staff Regulations, together with breach of Articles 1(d), 4, 7 and 29 of the Staff Regulations.

4. Fourth plea in law, alleging a plea of illegality under Article 277 TFEU of the whole Annex II to the notice of competition at issue, together with breach of Article 1(d) of the Staff Regulations.

(1) Regulation No 1 of 15 April 1958 determining the languages to be used by the European Economic Community (OJ, English Special Edition, Series I 1952-1958, p. 59), as amended.