CELEX: 62022TN0118
Language: en
Date: 2022-03-07 00:00:00
Title: Case T-118/22: Action brought on 7 March 2022 — OM v Commission

10.5.2022   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 191/32
            
         
      Action brought on 7 March 2022 — OM v Commission
      (Case T-118/22)
      (2022/C 191/41)
      Language of the case: French
      
         Parties
      
      
         Applicant: OM (represented by: N. de Montigny, lawyer)
      
         Defendant: European Commission
      
         Form of order sought
      
      The applicant claims that the Court should:
      
                  —
               
               
                  annul the decision of 29 April 2021 not to select the applicant in selection procedure COM/2020/10396 and notifying the appointment of another candidate;
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  in so far as necessary, annul the decision rejecting his complaint of 25 November 2021, registered on 26 November 2021 under number Ares(2021)7297231;
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  order the defendant to pay the costs.
               
            
         Pleas in law and main arguments
      
      In support of the action, the applicant relies on five pleas in law.
      
                  1.
               
               
                  First plea in law, alleging infringement of vacancy notice COM/2020/10396 in so far as his skills and abilities were not evaluated by reference to the grid set out in that notice.
               
            
                  2.
               
               
                  Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the agenda given to candidates as to the subject on which they would be questioned during the selection interview in so far as no question was put to the applicant on the main analysis he had been asked to prepare, which also entails a breach of his legitimate expectations.
               
            
                  3.
               
               
                  Third plea in law, alleging unequal treatment in so far as questions which had been devised by the selection panel to be put to candidates were not put to him and other questions which were put to him did not correspond to that predefined list. The applicant submits, in that regard, that this does not make it possible to ensure that they were also put to other candidates. The applicant further submits that his interview lasted for less time than expected, which may have put him at a disadvantage compared with the other candidates and that it cannot be ruled out that he could have achieved a better result if he had been heard on all aspects of the oral test.
               
            
                  4.
               
               
                  Fourth plea in law, alleging that the content of the evaluation grid is manifestly erroneous and insufficient with respect to the answers given by the applicant during the interview.
               
            
                  5.
               
               
                  Fifth plea in law, alleging lack of cooperation on the part of the Commission and breach of the duty of sound administration.