Case T-467/17: Action brought on 26 July 2017 — Barata v Parliament
Date: 2017-07-26
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: competition (EU), drivers, equal treatment, job application, principle of proportionality, professional qualifications, right to justice, rights of the defence, servant (EU), staff regulations (EU)








C_2017347EN.01003301.xml










16.10.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 347/33





Action brought on 26 July 2017 — Barata v Parliament
(Case T-467/17)
(2017/C 347/42)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Carlos Manuel Henriques Barata (Lisbon, Portugal) (represented by: G. Pandey, D. Rovetta and V. Villante, lawyers)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul and set aside the following decisions and acts, where appropriate having previously declared illegal and not applicable to the applicant the Notice of Competition EP/CAST/S/16/2016 (1) under Article 277 of the TFEU:






—


the decision of 26/10/2016 of the Director for Human Resources Development not to include Mr Barata in the draft list of candidates for a contract staff in function group I as a driver under the so called CAST contract procedure 2016/2017;










—


the decision via email of 28/11/2016 by INLO DG of the Parliament to reconfirm the above decision not to include Mr Barata in the draft list of candidates for a contract staff in function group I as a driver under the so called CAST contract procedure 2016/2017;










—


the decision of 25/04/2017 of the European Parliament’s General Secretariat, signed by Mr Klaus Welle, notified to Mr Barata via registered letter, which rejected the applicant’s complaint under Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulation of Officials of the European Union, lodged on 09/01/2017;














—


order the European Parliament to bear the costs of the present proceedings





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law arguing that there was a breach of Article 25 of the EU staff regulations and of Article 296 TFEU resulting from a manifest error in the assessment of the applicant’s theoretical skills and manifest error in the assessment of facts, considering the inauthenticity of the questionnaire certificate allegedly corresponding to the document submitted by the applicant during the competition. The manifest error occurred as a consequence of lack of supervision by the Parliament over the due diligence of a subcontractor entrusted with the assessment of the applications in the 2016 CAST selection proceedings. This as such had an adverse impact on the obligations to state sufficient reasons to the applicant.
The applicant also relies on the breach of the effective judicial protection principle by negating his right of defence and rights to be heard, thus amounting to a breach of Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and submits a plea of illegality and inapplicability of the Notice of Competition EP/CAST/S/16/2016.
The applicant also submits that the Parliament acted ultra vires by delegating selection procedure to the Ecole de Maîtrise Automobile (hereinafter subcontractor), which has not been bound by the EU Staff Regulations and internal EU Institutions Code of Conducts. According to the applicant, this amounts to a breach of the notice of competition and of Article 30 of the Staff Regulation in combination with Annex III to the Staff Regulation reinforcing abovementioned breach of the duty of sound and good administration.
The applicant further relies on a breach of Article 1 of the Staff Regulations, of the principle of non-discrimination and of the principle of proportionality with regard to the conduct of the competition by the Parliament’s and/or the subcontractor and in relation to limiting the choice of a second language for candidates participating in this call for expression of interests.
Finally the applicant argues that there has been a breach of the principle of equal opportunity as well as a breach of Article 296(2) of the TFEU and Article 25 of the Staff Regulations — with regards to EP and the subcontractor’s failure to state reasons for their decisions, reinforced by lack of supervision over the latter. Applicant submits that it amounts to a breach of the Notice of Competition EP/CAST/S/16/2016, breach of the Principle of Reasonable and sound Administration and breach of the applicant's legitimate expectations and of the principle of equality.


(1)  Call for expressions of interest — contract staff — functional group I — Drivers (f/m) EP/CAST/S/16/2016 (OJ 2016, C 131 A/01)