do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-609/16: Judgment of the General Court of 14 December 2017 — PB v Commission (Civil service — Officials — Recruitment — Competition notice EPSO/AD/309/15 (AD 11) — Doctors for the Luxembourg site — Refusal of admission to the tests at the assessment centre — Limitation of the choice of second language to a restricted number of official languages of the European Union — Objection of illegality — Manifest error of assessment — Liability — Non-pecuniary harm)
Date: 2017-12-14
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EPSO, Luxembourg, administrator, admission to examinations, competition, competition (EU), damages, official language, physician








C_2018052EN.01002602.xml










12.2.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 52/26





Judgment of the General Court of 14 December 2017 — PB v Commission
(Case T-609/16) (1)

((Civil service - Officials - Recruitment - Competition notice EPSO/AD/309/15 (AD 11) - Doctors for the Luxembourg site - Refusal of admission to the tests at the assessment centre - Limitation of the choice of second language to a restricted number of official languages of the European Union - Objection of illegality - Manifest error of assessment - Liability - Non-pecuniary harm))
(2018/C 052/37)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: PB (represented by: M. Velardo, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: G. Gattinara and L. Radu Bouyon, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 270 TFEU and seeking, first, annulment of the decision of the selection board in Competition EPSO/AD/309/15 (AD 11) — Doctors for the sites of Luxembourg and Ispra (Field: Doctors Luxembourg) of 28 September 2015 not to admit the applicant to the selection tests held at the European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) assessment centre and, second, compensation for the harm allegedly suffered by the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Annuls the decision of 28 September 2015 by which the selection board for Open Competition EPSO/AD/309/15 (AD 11) — Doctors for the sites of Luxembourg and Ispra (Field: Doctors Luxembourg) refused to admit PB to the selection tests held at the European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) assessment centre;










2.


Dismisses the remainder of the action;










3.


Orders the European Commission to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 371, 10.10.2016 (case initially registered before the European Union Civil Service Tribunal under number F-39/16 and transferred to the General Court of the European Union on 1.9.2016).
Case T-136/15: Judgment of the General Court of 14 December 2017 — Evropaïki Dynamiki v European Parliament (Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Requests for quotation concerning all the lots covered by a call for tenders — Refusal to grant access — Absence of specific, individual examination of the documents requested — Exception relating to the protection of public security — Exception relating to the protection of commercial interests — Exception relating to the protection of privacy — Exception relating to the protection of the decision-making process — General presumption — Unreasonable workload)
Date: 2017-12-14
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: access to EU information, confidentiality, protection of privacy, public safety, tendering








C_2018042EN.01001101.xml










5.2.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 42/11





Judgment of the General Court of 14 December 2017 — Evropaïki Dynamiki v European Parliament
(Case T-136/15) (1)

((Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Requests for quotation concerning all the lots covered by a call for tenders - Refusal to grant access - Absence of specific, individual examination of the documents requested - Exception relating to the protection of public security - Exception relating to the protection of commercial interests - Exception relating to the protection of privacy - Exception relating to the protection of the decision-making process - General presumption - Unreasonable workload))
(2018/C 042/14)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE (Athens, Greece) (represented by: I. Ampazis and M. Sfyri, and subsequently by M. Sfyri and C.-N. Dede, lawyers)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: N. Görlitz, N. Rasmussen and L. Darie, and subsequently by N. Görlitz, L. Darie and C. Burgos, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the applicant: Kingdom of Sweden (represented by: E. Karlsson, L. Swedenborg, A. Falk, C. Meyer-Seitz, U. Persson and N. Otte Widgren, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application on the basis of Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of the decision of the European Parliament of 13 February 2015 refusing to grant access to the requests for quotation in all lots of Call for Tenders ITS08 — External service provision for IT services 2008/S 149-199622.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Parliament;










3.


Orders the Kingdom of Sweden to pay its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 228, 13.7.2015.
Case T-817/17: Action brought on 14 December 2017 — Schokker v EASA
Date: 2017-12-14
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European Aviation Safety Agency, competition (EU), damages, indemnification, work contract








C_2018063EN.01001601.xml










19.2.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 63/16





Action brought on 14 December 2017 — Schokker v EASA
(Case T-817/17)
(2018/C 063/21)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Boudewijn Schokker (Hoofddorp, Netherlands) (represented by: S. Orlandi and T. Martin, lawyers)

Defendant: European Aviation Safety Agency

Form of order sought







—


Declare and rule:






—


That the EASA shall pay the applicant the sum of EUR 80 000 as compensation for the non-pecuniary harm which he has suffered;










—


That the EASA shall pay the costs.









Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law, seeking to establish that EASA’s authority empowered to conclude contracts (‘the AECC’) committed a number of administrative errors.






1.


First plea in law, alleging that the AECC made an unlawful offer of employment to the applicant which, due to that fact, he was unable to accept unconditionally.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging that the AECC refused to correct that offer of employment, despite the fact that it was manifestly vitiated by illegality.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging that the abrupt withdrawal of the offer of employment by the AECC resulted in the definitive closure of the procedure to recruit the applicant.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging that the AECC failed to have regard to the purpose of the pre-litigation procedure by systematically frustrating all proposals for an out-of-court resolution to the dispute.