CELEX: 62020TN0041
Language: en
Date: 2020-01-24 00:00:00
Title: Case T-41/20: Action brought on 24 January 2020 — Di Bernardo v Commission

9.3.2020   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 77/60
            
         
      Action brought on 24 January 2020 — Di Bernardo v Commission
      (Case T-41/20)
      (2020/C 77/81)
      Language of the case: French
      
         Parties
      
      
         Applicant: Danilo di Bernardo (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S. Orlandi and T. Martin, lawyers)
      
         Defendant: European Commission
      
         Form of order sought
      
      The applicant claims that the Court should:
      
                  —
               
               
                  annul the decision of 13 March 2019 taken with a view to complying with the judgment of 29 November 2018 in Case T-811/16;
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  order the Commission to pay the applicant, as compensation for material harm caused to the applicant, a sum of EUR 50 000 as well as a sum of EUR 7 000, subject to increase in the course of the proceedings, as compensation for his moral harm;
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  order the Commission 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, alleging an infringement of the competition notice by the Examining Board in so far as the eligibility criteria that it laid down unlawfully restrict the scope of that notice. The applicant claims in that regard that, by adopting eligibility criteria which had the effect of excluding the taking into account of experience similar to that of the applicant, experience nevertheless compatible with the requirements of the competition notice, the Examining Board infringed the latter.
               
            
                  2.
               
               
                  Second plea in law, alleging manifest errors of assessment vitiating the contested decision and relating to the question whether the applicant’s professional experience is related to the responsibilities described in the competition notice.