Case C-635/20 P: Appeal brought on 20 November 2020 by the European Commission against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 9 September 2020 in Joined Cases T-401/16 and T-443/16, Spain and Italy v Commission
Date: 2020-11-20
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EPSO, administrator, competition (EU), language skills, linguistic discrimination, official language, staff regulations (EU)








C_2021028EN.01003301.xml










25.1.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 28/33






Appeal brought on 20 November 2020 by the European Commission against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 9 September 2020 in Joined Cases T-401/16 and T-443/16, Spain and Italy v Commission
(Case C-635/20 P)
(2021/C 28/53)
Languages of the case: Spanish and Italian

Parties


Appellant: European Commission (represented by: G. Gattinara, D. Milanowska, T. Lilamand and N. Ruiz-Garcìa, acting as Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: Italian Republic, Kingdom of Spain

Form of order sought

The Commission claims that the Court should:






—


set aside the judgment under appeal;










—


if the Court considers that the state of the proceedings so permits, dismiss the action at first instance as unfounded;










—


order the Italian Republic and the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs of the present proceedings and of those at first instance.





Grounds of appeal and main arguments

In support of its appeal, the Commission relies on three grounds.
The 
first ground of appeal
 alleges an error of law in the interpretation of Article 1d(6) of the Staff Regulations and in the interpretation of the obligation to state reasons, as well as infringement of the duty to state the reasons on which judgments of the General Court are based.
This ground is divided into three parts. By the first part, the appellant alleges an error of law and infringement of the duty to state the reasons on which judgments of the General Court are based as regards the objective of immediate operability of candidates. This first part relates to paragraphs 157 and 181 to 183 of the judgment under appeal.
The second part concerns the definition of a disproportionate burden of proof on the Commission and an alleged error of law in the definition of the obligation to state reasons for competition notices. This second part relates to the last sentence of paragraph 133, paragraphs 158 and 164, the last sentence of paragraph 167, and paragraphs 180 to 183, 201 and 205 of the judgment under appeal.
The third part alleges that the General Court erred in law in seeking a legally binding act in the internal rules provided by the Commission. This part relates to paragraphs 152 to 155 of the judgment under appeal.
By the 
second ground of appeal
 the appellant alleges that various distortions were made by the General Court in its assessment of the evidence and that the General Court committed an error in law.
The first distortion relates to the assessment of the Communication of the President of the Commission and the assessment of its approval made by the General Court in paragraphs 132 to 137 and paragraph 158 of the judgment under appeal.
The second distortion concerns the assessment of the Commission’s internal rules and the provisions for their implementation made in paragraphs 139 and 140 of the judgment under appeal.
The third distortion concerns the assessment of the section on the linguistic requirements as regards the adoption procedure in the Manual of Operational Procedures made in paragraphs 165 to 169 of the judgment under appeal.
The fourth distortion concerns the failure to carry out an overall assessment of the documents referred to in the three preceding paragraphs and relates to paragraphs 152 to 157 and paragraph 159 of the judgment under appeal.
The fifth distortion concerns the assessment of Communication SEC(2006)1489 final made in paragraphs 160 to 163 of the judgment under appeal.
The sixth distortion concerns the assessment of the documents concerning the languages used in the services for which the candidates were intended and an error of law. This relates to paragraphs 180 to 185 and 188 to 196 of the judgment under appeal.
Lastly, the 
third ground of appeal
 concerns the allegedly unlawful nature of the General Court’s analysis of the candidates’ languages of communication. This ground relates to paragraphs 231 to 236 of the judgment under appeal.