CELEX: 62020TN0572
Language: en
Date: 2020-09-07 00:00:00
Title: Case T-572/20: Action brought on 7 September 2020 — Spisto v Commission

3.11.2020   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 371/27
            
         
      Action brought on 7 September 2020 — Spisto v Commission
      (Case T-572/20)
      (2020/C 371/31)
      Language of the case: French
      
         Parties
      
      
         Applicant: Amanda Spisto (Amsterdam, Netherlands) (represented by: N. de Montigny, lawyer)
      
         Defendant: European Commission
      
         Form of order sought
      
      The applicant claims that the Court should:
      
                  —
               
               
                  annul the decision of 24 September 2019 rejecting her request for review of competition EPSO/AD/371/19 — Field 1;
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  annul, in so far as is necessary, the decision dated 26 May 2020 rejecting the complaint;
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  order the defendant 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 illegality of the competition notice on the basis of which the contested decision was adopted, on the ground that it breached the principles of legal certainty, transparency and predictability, not only in the assessment of the selection criteria but also as regards the ‘relevance’ to be assessed and found by the members of the EPSO selection board in the ‘talent screener’ test.
               
            
                  2.
               
               
                  Second plea in law, alleging that no statement of reasons was given for the contested decision. The applicant submits that, after the EPSO selection board’s decision, it was not possible to ascertain from the contested decision how the assessment was made, the criteria that were used or the way in which relevance to questions was determined.
               
            
                  3.
               
               
                  Third plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is vitiated by a manifest error of assessment.