CELEX: 62017TN0813
Language: en
Date: 2017-12-14 00:00:00
Title: Case T-813/17: Action brought on 14 December 2017 — Nerantzaki v Commission

12.2.2018   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 52/39
            
         Action brought on 14 December 2017 — Nerantzaki v Commission
   (Case T-813/17)
   (2018/C 052/52)
   Language of the case: English
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicant: Eleni Nerantzaki (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: N. Korogiannakis, lawyer)
   
      Defendant: European Commission
   
      Form of order sought
   
   The applicant claims that the Court should:
   
               —
            
            
               annul the decision of the EPSO selection board of 7 March 2017 not to admit the applicant to the next stage of open competition EPSO/AD/331/16;
            
         
               —
            
            
               annul the decision of the appointing authority Ares(2017)s. 4916702 of 14 September 2017, rejecting the applicant’s complaint against the decision not to admit the applicant to open competition EPSO/AD/331/16;
            
         
               —
            
            
               order the defendant to pay the applicant’s legal and other costs and expenses incurred in connection with the present application.
            
         
      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 a manifest error of assessment by the defendant in the assessment of the applicant’s professional qualifications.
            
         
            
               2.
            
            
               Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the notice of competition EPSO/AD/331/16.
            
         
            
               3.
            
            
               Third plea in law, alleging inadequate and contradictory reasoning such as to constitute a breach both of Article 25 and of Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations.