Case C-651/25 P: Appeal brought on 03 October 2025 by James Flett against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 23 July 2025 in Case T-613/23, Flett v Commission
Date: 2025-10-03
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: appointment of staff, competition (EU), gender equality, indemnification, legal profession, principle of legal certainty, professional qualifications, promotion, recruitment, staff regulations (EU)








C_202600283EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2026/283


26.1.2026






Appeal brought on 03 October 2025 by James Flett against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 23 July 2025 in Case T-613/23, Flett v Commission


(Case C-651/25 P)

(C/2026/283)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: James Flett (represented by: L. Levi, avocate)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:






—


set aside the judgement under appeal, in particular point 2 of its operative part insofar as it relates to the claim for damages and to the rejection of the claims for annulment of the response to the complaint;










—


annul the decision of 25 January 2023 appointing ‘A’ as Principal Legal Advisor of the European Commission Legal Service Trade Policy and WTO Team (and not appointing the appellant);










—


annul the response to the Complaint (No R/139/23) of 27 June 2023 (C(2003) 4042 final);










—


condemn the Commission to compensate the appellant for the damage suffered;










—


order the Commission to pay the costs of the appeal as well as the costs of the proceedings at first instance.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the Appeal, the appellant relies on four pleas in law.






1.


First: the General Court erred in law by rejecting the claim for non-material and material damages.
On the one hand, the annulment of the contested decision is not appropriate or sufficient compensation if it is incapable of entirely compensating for the harm caused or has no practical effect.
On the other hand, the contested judgment fails to state or apply the correct legal standards with respect to a claim of ‘loss of opportunity’. The contested judgment could not reject the claim for material harm without considering whether the damage suffered may be assessed ex æquo et bono. In addition, the General Court should have considered the effects of the unlawful act with respect to the past and not seek to rely only on the proposition that some other person might also have suffered a loss of opportunity.










2.


Second: legal errors in the contested judgment’s rejection of the first plea.






—


Firstly, the General Court erred in law by finding that assessment criteria ‘evolve’ during a selection procedure. Assessment criteria are established in the Vacancy Notice and remain unchanged throughout the selection procedure.










—


Secondly, it erred in law by substituting the grounds in the contested decision for grounds stated in the response to the complaint without statement or application of the relevant legal standard, which is whether or not such grounds ‘coincide in substance’.










—


Thirdly, it erred in law by declaring the plea of breach of the principle of sound administration inadmissible without statement or application of the relevant legal standard, which is whether or not the matters addressed by arguments in the reply came to light during the course of the procedure.










—


Fourthly, the General Court erred in law by interpreting the phrase ‘comparative assessment’ in Section 5.2.6 of the Senior Management Decision as not extending to a situation which, based on the reasons stated in the contested decision, involved a juxtaposition of candidates.














3.


Third: error in law due to rejection of the second plea.










4.


Fourth: error in law due to rejection of the claim seeking annulment of the response to the complaint.






ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2026/283/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)