Case T-695/17: Action brought on 9 October 2017 — Italy v Commission
Date: 2017-10-09
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EPSO, administrator, competition (EU), equal treatment, information profession, linguistic discrimination, principle of proportionality, staff regulations (EU), translation, use of languages








C_2017424EN.01005101.xml










11.12.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 424/51





Action brought on 9 October 2017 — Italy v Commission
(Case T-695/17)
(2017/C 424/75)
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicant: Italian Republic (represented by: G. Palmieri, acting as Agent, and P. Gentili, avvocato dello Stato)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the notice of Open Competitions — EPSO/AD/343/17 — German-language (DE) translators (AD 5) — EPSO/AD/344/17 — French-language (FR) translators (AD 5) — EPSO/AD/345/17 — Italian-language (IT) translators (AD 5) — EPSO/AD/346/17 — Dutch-language (NL) translators (AD 5), published in 
Official Journal of the European Union No C 224 A of 13 July 2017;










—


order the Commission to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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








1.


First plea in law, alleging infringement of Articles 263 TFEU, 264 TFEU and 266 TFEU.






—


The Commission has disregarded the authority of the judgment of the Court of Justice in Case C-566/10 P and of the judgment of the General Court of 24 September 2015 in Cases T-124/15 and T-191/13, which find that it is unlawful for notices for open competitions of the European Union to limit to only English, French and German the languages which candidates may indicate as their second language.
















2.


Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 342 TFEU and of Articles 1 and 6 of Regulation No 1/58.






—


The applicant argues in this respect that, by limiting to three the languages which may be chosen as a second language by candidates in open competitions of the European Union, the Commission has in practice created new rules on the use of languages by the institutions, thereby encroaching on the exclusive competence of the Council in this area.
















3.


Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 12 EC, now Article 18 TFEU; Article 22 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union; Article 6(3) EU; Articles 1(2) and 3 of Annex III to the Staff Regulations; Articles 1 and 6 of Regulation No 1/58; and Articles 1d(1) and (6), 27(2) and 28(f) of the Staff Regulations.






—


The applicant claims in this respect that the language restriction introduced by the Commission is discriminatory because the legislative provisions cited above prohibit the imposition on EU citizens or officials of the institutions of linguistic restrictions which are not generally and objectively provided for under the institutions’ rules of procedure as referred to in Article 6 of Regulation No 1/58 and which have not yet been adopted; they also prohibit the introduction of such limitations unless they are justified by a specific substantiated interest of the service.
















4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 6(3) EU, in so far as it establishes the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations as a fundamental right resulting from the constitutional traditions common to the Member States.






—


The applicant claims in this respect that the Commission has frustrated citizens’ expectations of being able to choose any language of the European Union as their second language, as was always the case up until 2007 and as has been authoritatively confirmed in the judgment of the Court of Justice in Case C-566/10 P.
















5.


Fifth plea in law, alleging misuse of powers and infringement of substantive rules concerning the nature and purpose of competition notices, in particular Articles 1d(1) and (6), 28(f), 27(2), 34(3) and 45(1) of the Staff Regulations, as well as an infringement of the principle of proportionality.






—


The applicant claims in this respect that, by restricting to three, in a pre-emptive and general manner, the number of languages eligible for use as a second language, the Commission has effectively placed the assessment of the candidates’ linguistic abilities — an assessment which ought to be carried out in the course of the competition itself — before the notice and eligibility stages. Thus, a candidate’s knowledge of languages, rather than his professional knowledge, becomes the decisive factor.
















6.


Sixth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 18 TFEU and the fourth paragraph of Article 24 TFEU; Article 22 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union; Article 2 of Regulation No 1/58; and Article 1d(1) and (6) of the Staff Regulations.






—


The applicant claims in this respect that, by providing that applications must be submitted in English, French or German and that any communications sent to candidates by EPSO relating to the progress of the competition would be written in the same language, the right of European citizens to interact with the European institutions in their own language has been adversely affected and further discrimination has been introduced against those who do not have a thorough knowledge of those three languages.
















7.


Seventh plea in law, alleging infringement of Articles 1 and 6 of Regulation No 1/58; Article 1d(1) and (6) of the Staff Regulations and Article 1(1)(f) of Annex III to the Staff Regulations; and of the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU (failure to state reasons), as well as infringement of the principle of proportionality and distortion of the facts.






—


The applicant claims in this respect that the Commission has used the requirement that new recruits be capable immediately of communicating within the institutions as a means of justifying the ‘three languages’ restriction. That justification distorts the facts because it is not the case that the three languages in question are the ones most used for communication between different language groups within the institutions, and it is disproportionate in regard to the restriction of a fundamental right such as the right not to suffer discrimination on grounds of language when less restrictive arrangements exist for ensuring effective communication within the institutions.