Action brought on 5 March 2007 - Kerelov v Commission

(Case F-19/07)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Georgi Kerelov (Pazardzhik, Bulgaria) (represented by: Angel Kerelov, lawyer)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

annul the decision of 6 December 2006 of the selection board for competition EPSO/AD/43/06-CJ not to include the applicant on the reserve list for that competition;

declare null and void, and if necessary annul as unlawful, the decision of 2 February 2007 of the selection board for competition EPSO/AD/43/06-CJ to exclude the applicant from that competition;

order the defendant to pay the applicant fixed damages assessed on equitable principles at EUR 120 491.28 (two years' salary) with statutory interest from the date on which the application in respect of the material and non-material damage suffered by the applicant as a result of those illegal decisions by the competition selection board was lodged;

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Concerning the first decision under appeal, the applicant puts forward 10 pleas:

(1)    the ordinary members of the selection board were not able to make a free assessment of the candidates in so far as the chairman and the alternate chairman were their hierarchical superiors;

(2)    the members of the selection board were not familiar with the main language of the competition (Bulgarian), contrary to the requirements resulting from well-established case-law;

(3)    the length and difficulty of the texts which the candidates had to translate were not comparable as between the source languages chosen;

(4)    the marking of the written tests was arbitrary, since the selection board did not know Bulgarian;

(5)    the duration of the oral test varied greatly depending on the candidate;

(6), (7) and (8) first, the criteria applied by the selection board to assess the oral tests did not correspond to the purpose of those tests and, secondly, several candidates were awarded marks which were arbitrary;

(9)    candidates were denied their right to have their submissions re-marked, in so far as the reserve list had been definitively drawn up and put into circulation before the expiry of the 20-day period laid down in the competition notice for the purpose of the exercise of that right;

(10)    the selection board assessed the applicant's tests, in particular his oral test, improperly, justifying the marks by incoherent, inconsistent and irrelevant reasons.

Concerning the second decision under appeal, the applicant raises 3 pleas:

(1)    he disputes the relevance of the facts on which the selection board based its decision, namely the fact that he tried to contact members of the selection board;

(2)    he disputes that the selection board has the power to exclude a candidate from a competition for such reasons, since, he submits, EPSO alone has that power;

(3)    he maintains that, even if the selection board does have such a power, it cannot exercise it after the reserve list has been drawn up.

____________