Case T-804/19: Action brought on 20 November 2019 – HC v Commission
Date: 2019-11-20
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EPSO, administrator, competition (EU), customs profession, damages, equal treatment, linguistic discrimination, professional experience, professional qualifications, tax authorities








C_2020054EN.01005201.xml










17.2.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 54/52






Action brought on 20 November 2019 – HC v Commission
(Case T-804/19)
(2020/C 54/58)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: HC (represented by: G. Pandey and V. Villante, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul, the decision of 20 August 2019 of the European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) rejecting the applicant’s complaint under Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union, lodged on 17 April 2019, including the rejection of the request for EUR 50 000 compensation;










—


annul the EPSO/Selection Board decision of 21 March 2019 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 28 January 2019 at the online EPSO account not to include the applicant in the draft list of officials selected for the purposes of the competition EPSO/AD/363/18;










—


annul the notice of open competition EPSO/AD/363/18, published on 11 October 2018, (1) and, in its entirety, the resulting draft list of officials selected to take part in the aforesaid competition and/or declare it unlawful and inapplicable to the applicant under Article 277 TFEU;










—


order the defendant to pay the applicant EUR 50 000 in damages in respect of the harm resulting from the abovementioned contested decisions;










—


as a preliminary matter, where appropriate, declare Article 90 of the Staff Regulations invalid and inapplicable in the present proceedings, under Article 277 TFEU.





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 in respect of the applicant’s work experience and, in this context, that the obligation to motivate a decision was not fulfilled and that Article 25 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union and Article 296 TFEU were infringed.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and of the applicant’s right to be heard and, in this context, the infringement of the duty to state reasons and of Article 296 TFEU.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging the violation of Articles 1, 2, 3 and 4 of Regulation No. 1 of 1958 (2) and, in this context, the infringement of Articles 1d and 28 of the Staff Regulations as well as of Article 1(1)(f) of Annex III to the Staff Regulations and of the principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging the illegality of the talent screener in the light of Articles 1d, 4, 7 and 29 of the Staff Regulations.






(1)  OJ 2018 C 368A, p. 1.

(2)  Regulation No 1 of the Council 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).