Case T-776/25: Action brought on 7 November 2025 – Colombani v EEAS
Date: 2025-11-07
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Morocco, Norway, South Korea, Union delegation, access to EU information, competition (EU), data protection, equal treatment, job application, personal data








C_202600182EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2026/182


12.1.2026






Action brought on 7 November 2025 – Colombani v EEAS


(Case T-776/25)

(C/2026/182)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Jean-Marc Colombani (Tbilisi, Georgia) (represented by: N. de Montigny, lawyer)

Defendant: European External Action Service

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the decision of the Director-General for Resource Management of the EEAS of 29 July 2025 rejecting Complaint R/EEAS/3/25 brought by the applicant against:






—


the decision of the Secretariat of the Consultative Committee on Appointments of 4 December 2024 refusing to communicate to the applicant the appropriately redacted CVs of the candidates shortlisted for the head of delegation posts in Morocco, Norway and Korea,










—


the decision of the appointing authority (of 31 October 2024) adopting the list of those shortlisted candidates, and










—


the decision of the appointing authority appointing the candidates who were ultimately successful in respect of those three posts;














—


annul the decision of the Secretary-General of the EEAS of 3 October 2025 supplementing the rejection decision of 29 July 2025 referred to above and also rejecting Complaint R/EEAS/3/25;










—


order the defendant to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law, concerning the position of the EEAS concerning the scope of the information to be transmitted in connection with a selection procedure and the resulting illegality of the decisions adopted in that context.






—


The applicant submits that the illegal interpretation by the EEAS of the rules governing the protection of candidates’ personal data in the selection procedures covered by the contested decisions prevented him from accessing information which was essential for assessing the validity of the decisions adopted in the context of the selection procedures in which he had participated. The decisions rejecting his applications therefore manifestly lack sufficient information to enable him to make sure that his applications have been processed legally.














2.


Second plea in law, alleging misuse of rights, misuse of powers, failure to explain the refusal to apply a practical solution similar to the solution applied to his previous similar request, and breach of the principle of good administration and the duty of care, and alleging that the decisions taken against the applicant do not enjoy a presumption of legality.






—


The applicant submits that the failure by the EEAS to respond favourably to his request that it provide a statement of reasons prevented him from making sure that there had been no discriminatory or improper processing of his applications, in particular through the acknowledgement of the illegality of the denial, by the EEAS, of the existence of any dispute and the legitimate doubts resulting therefrom as to the neutrality of the decisions concerning him. By this failure, the EEAS has acted in breach of in its duty of care towards one of its members of staff, who has consistently asked his administration to put an end to the damage which he claims objectively to have suffered as a result of harassing and discriminatory behaviour, and to make good that damage.










ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2026/182/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)