Case T-670/24: Action brought on 20 December 2024 – Recrytera v Commission
Date: 2024-12-20
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EPSO, equal treatment, invitation to tender, principle of proportionality, protection of privacy, public procurement, services contract, technical specification, tendering








C_202502091EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/2091


14.4.2025






Action brought on 20 December 2024 – Recrytera v Commission


(Case T-670/24)

(C/2025/2091)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Recrytera Srl (Chieti, Italy) (represented by: F. Sciaudone, D. Fesler and G. Lovaste, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


Annul the defendant’s decision to launch a public procurement competition and to issue the corresponding competition notice ‘Contract or Concession Notice – Standard Regime’, as published in TED – Supplement to the Official Journal of the European Union on 16 October 2024, under the notice number 623940-2024, as such decision and notice were amended by the ‘Contract or Concession Notice – Standard Regime – Change Notice’, as published on 22 October 2024, under the notice number 638461-2024, and as later amended by the ‘Contract or Concession Notice – Standard Regime – Change Notice’, as published on 21 November 2024, under the notice number 709442-2024;










—


Annul the defendant’s underlying decision to rely on – and consequently to procure – proctored remote testing services for the vast majority of the tests EPSO shall conduct going forward, i.e. exclusively in essence, without leaving any room for on-site testing alongside and simultaneously with remote tests, of which decision the applicant learned about upon taking knowledge of the abovementioned decision as amended on 22 October 2024;










—


order the defendant to pay the full costs and expenses incurred in the proceedings by the applicant.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law, alleging that the contested decisions violate Article 163(1) and (2) of Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2024/2509 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 September 2024 (1) and Section 17.1 Technical specifications of Annex I thereto for non-compliance with the principles of equal treatment, necessity and proportionality on the part of the defendant.










—


The applicant submits, in essence, that, by setting functional requirements under the technical specifications limiting the scope of the tendered computer-based testing services to remote testing procedures, attended by candidates from private places selected by them and using their own devices, and thereby excluding computer-based on-site testing services, such as of the type offered by the applicant, the defendant did not properly open the tender under review to competition and discriminated against the applicant.










—


As per the first branch of the plea, it is contended that the defendant did not assess and even less justify its choice as to the design of the tender and the formulation of the technical specifications requiring that testing services be delivered exclusively remotely. Specifically, the defendant fell short of its legal obligation to complete a data protection impact assessment of remote testing solutions as required under Regulation (EU) 2018/1725 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2018 (‘the EUDPR’) (2) and further omitted to conduct an assessment recommended by the European Ombudsman as to the accessibility of such solutions for candidates of diverse backgrounds.










—


As per the second branch of the plea, the contested decisions favour – proctored – remote testing solutions at the cost of a significant intrusion in candidates’ privacy and of the violation of candidates’ fundamental rights under the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the EU Charter’).










—


The applicant further submits that, considering notably the existence of alternative viable solutions, such as computer-based on-site testing, the competition initiated does not comply with the principles of equal treatment, necessity and proportionality, as sanctioned by Article 163 and Section 17.1 Technical Specifications of Annex I of Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2024/2509.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging that the contested decisions violate Articles 20, 21, 15(1) and (2), of the EU Charter (first branch), as well as Articles 5(2) 10, 26(1), and 39 of the EUDPR, and, by the same token, Articles 7, 8, juncto Article 52(1) of the EU Charter (second branch).










—


As per the first branch of the plea, the applicant submits, in essence, that the endorsement of remote testing procedures on an exclusive basis by the contested decisions violates the candidates’ rights of equality, of protection against discrimination and their right to seek the employment of their choice under the EU Charter.










—


As per the second branch of the plea, the applicant contends that the same endorsement violates several provisions of the EUDPR and, consequently, candidates’ rights to privacy and to the protection of personal data, as provided for by the EU Charter, which the defendant is bound to respect.






(1)  Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2024/2509 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 September 2024 on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union (OJ L 2024/2059)

(2)  Regulation (EU) 2018/1725 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2018 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data by the Union institutions, bodies, offices and agencies and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 and Decision No 1247/2002/EC (OJ 2018 L 295, p. 39).


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/2091/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)