CELEX: 62021TN0085
Language: en
Date: 2021-02-08 00:00:00
Title: Case T-85/21: Action brought on 8 February 2021 — QF v Commission

22.3.2021   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 98/36
            
         
      Action brought on 8 February 2021 — QF v Commission
      (Case T-85/21)
      (2021/C 98/41)
      Language of the case: French
      
         Parties
      
      
         Applicant: QF (represented by: S. Orlandi, lawyer)
      
         Defendant: European Commission
      
         Form of order sought
      
      The applicant claims that the Court should:
      
                  —
               
               
                  annul the decision not to include his name on the reserve list for internal competition COM/03/AD/18;
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  order the European Commission 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 failure adequately to state reasons. The applicant takes the view that the statement of reasons consists of literal assessments, which are not consistent with the grades awarded. Moreover, the selection board has not communicated the assessment criteria adopted before the tests, so that neither the applicant nor the appointing authority was able to check the legality of those criteria.
               
            
                  2.
               
               
                  Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of equal treatment. In that regard, the applicant relies in particular on the fact that the selection board modified, after the tests, the grades awarded by its members on the basis of an assessment grid, whereas that assessment grid was intended to ensure the equal treatment of candidates.
               
            
                  3.
               
               
                  Third plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment committed by the selection board since that board was not in a position to justify to the requisite legal standard the manifest inconsistencies between the literal assessments and the numerical grades, having regard to a comparison with comparable assessments of other candidates.