Case T-384/23: Action brought on 10 July 2023 — OQ v Commission
Date: 2023-07-10
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: administrator, competition (EU), equal treatment, free movement of workers, information profession, lawyer, professional experience, professional qualifications, recognition of diplomas, translation








C_2023304EN.01002901.xml










28.8.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 304/29






Action brought on 10 July 2023 — OQ v Commission
(Case T-384/23)
(2023/C 304/36)
Language of the case: Croatian

Parties


Applicant: OQ (represented by: R. Štaba, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the decision of the European Personnel Selection Office of 15 May 2023 in competition EPSO/AD/378/20, and










—


order the defendant, the European Commission, to pay OQ the costs of the present proceedings, together with default interest accrued as from the moment the applicant took each course of action until payment.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 45 TFEU on the ground that, in the decision of 15 May 2023, the selection board refused to admit the applicant to competition EPSO/AD/378/20 with the reasoning that his French diploma in law did not satisfy the conditions of that competition, even though, in Case T-713/20, which concerned proceedings between the same parties and based on the same facts, the General Court had expressly held that the applicant’s application could not be rejected on the sole ground that the he did not have one of the diplomas requested in the competition and that, in that regard, the competition was unlawful vis-à-vis the applicant. Thus, the applicant’s fundamental freedom under Article 45 TFEU was infringed, as that non-recognition resulted in a serious obstacle to the freedom of movement of persons on account of the fact that the selection board failed to assess the applicant’s diploma in accordance with the Court’s settled case-law in that regard. The second part of the first plea in law relates to the failure to take account of the rest of the applicant’s experience and certificates evidencing that he has the requisite knowledge and experience.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging manifest errors of assessment and of law on the ground that the selection board failed to take account of the applicant’s experience in translating legal texts that he had acquired working in the European Parliament. The manifest error consists in the fact that the experience in question is in translating legal texts, which was, inter alia, what was sought in the text of the notice of competition. The selection board also committed an error of law since it classified the applicant’s experience in the context of similar positions in other EU institutions, whereas, in accordance with the relevant practice, it should have evaluated it exclusively in the context of the competition at issue. Thereby, the selection board departed from the text of the notice of competition, to which it was strictly bound.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging failure to take account of the translation experience acquired in the context of the interinstitutional exchange between the Court and the Parliament. Even though the applicant was formally a translator at the European Parliament at the time, the knowledge that he acquired working at the Court of Justice of the European Union in the context of the exchange could in no way be disregarded, since, in any event, the experience in question is relevant, despite the fact that it was acquired in the context of an exchange. By classifying the experience as irrelevant, the selection board committed a manifest error of law.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging failure to take account, in its entirety, of the legal work experience acquired in the Republic of Croatia. The selection board committed a manifest error in the assessment of the facts, since it failed to regard as relevant experience approximately 45 days of work in a law firm in the Republic of Croatia. Only approximately one month of work in that firm was recognised in respect of the applicant, after his name had been included on the list of trainee lawyers. In support of his argument that the contested period should have also been taken into account, the applicant submits that the subsequent inclusion on the list was the result of the fact that the applicant holds a foreign diploma which was examined at a session of the Croatian Bar Association almost a month after the applicant had applied to be included on the list maintained by that body. Nevertheless, until his inclusion on the list, the applicant carried out strictly legal tasks and duties, as is apparent also from the documents submitted, which show that the employer intended, from the very start of the employment relationship, for the applicant to perform the legal duties of a trainee lawyer. Moreover, nowhere in the competition was it stated that it was a condition for the recognition of relevant experience that the candidate be included on the list of trainee lawyers, but only that the candidate should have worked in a law firm. Accordingly, the selection board departed from the text of the notice of competition, to which it was strictly bound.










5.


Fifth plea in law, alleging failure to state reasons in the decision of 15 May 2023 refusing to admit the applicant to the competition at issue, on the ground that that decision does not state any clear criteria on the basis of which the selection board reached its decision, and that the reasons given are contradictory and it is not possible to infer from them what precise criterion the applicant failed to fulfil. Thereby, the selection board failed to observe the principle of equal treatment, since all the other candidates knew from the very beginning whether they satisfied the conditions of the competition, whereas the applicant, on account of the failure to state reasons, still does not know whether he satisfies the conditions of the competition and on the basis of what criteria that is determined by the board.