CELEX: 62017TN0203
Language: en
Date: 2017-04-03 00:00:00
Title: Case T-203/17: Action brought on 3 April 2017 — GY v Commission

19.6.2017   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 195/32
            
         Action brought on 3 April 2017 — GY v Commission
   (Case T-203/17)
   (2017/C 195/45)
   Language of the case: French
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicant: GY (represented by: S. Orlandi and T. Martin, lawyers)
   
      Defendant: European Commission
   
      Form of order sought
   
   Declare and rule that
   
               —
            
            
               The decision of the selection board for competition EPSO/AD/293/14 of 23 December 2016 not to admit the applicant to the assessment centre is annulled;
            
         
               —
            
            
               The European Commission is ordered to pay a sum assessed ex aequo et bono at EUR 5 000 in respect of the non-pecuniary harm suffered;
            
         
               —
            
            
               The European Commission is, in any event, ordered to pay the costs.
            
         
      Pleas in law and main arguments
   
   In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law.
   
               1.
            
            
               First plea in law, alleging infringement by the selection board of the obligation to state reasons insofar as it did not disclose to the applicant the marking criteria which it adopted in execution of the judgment of 20 July 2016, GY v Commission, F-123/15, EU:F:2016:160.
            
         
               2.
            
            
               Second plea in law, alleging infringement by the selection board of the competition notice insofar as it arbitrarily restricted its assessment of the applicant’s professional experience by, in connection with three questions, looking only at the duration of that experience.
            
         
               3.
            
            
               Third plea in law, alleging numerous manifest errors of assessment committed by the selection board of the competition, which render its decision to grant the applicant only 17 points out of 56 (the threshold being 22 points) unlawful.