Language of document :

Action brought on 29 January 2007 - Angioi v Commission

(Case F-7/07)

Language of the case: French


Applicant: Marie-Thérèse Angioi (Valenciennes, France) (represented by: M.-A. Lucas, lawyer)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

annul the decision of 14 February 2006 of the European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) laying down the applicant's results in the pre-selection tests for contract agents EU 25;

annul the decision of EPSO and/or of the Selection Committee not to register the applicant in the data base of candidates who had passed the pre-selection tests;

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant puts forward three pleas in law in support of her action.

By her first plea, the applicant claims that the Call for expression of interest published by EPSO on 20 June 2005 is contrary to Article 12(1) EC and Article 82(1) and (3)(e) of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants. It criticises in particular the fact that the Call for expression of interest defined the candidates' main language as that of their nationality (or, in the case of countries with more than one official language, the language of their compulsory education) and provided for pre-selection tests to be held, for each candidate, in a language other than their main language and for a choice to be made between English, French and German. Those provisions meant that candidates, first, were prevented from declaring as their principal language another Community language of which they had thorough knowledge without however having the corresponding nationality and, second, were obliged to take the tests in one of the three aforementioned languages. The system gives rise to differential treatment based on nationality which cannot be objectively justified by the requirements of the functions to be performed.

The second plea alleges infringement of the principles of sound administration, equal treatment, objectivity and protection of legitimate expectations in that the applicant's pre-selection tests were marred by incidents which disturbed her and deprived her of some of the time allowed to her, without her having been authorised to start the tests over again or be granted extra time.

By her third plea, the applicant alleges, first, infringement of the principle of equal treatment in that the questions put were chosen in a random manner in a base containing questions of very varying levels, the validity of some of which was dubious and, second, infringement of the principles of protection of legitimate expectations and transparency and the obligation to state reasons in that EPSO did not provide her with the questions put to her.