Language of document :

Action brought on 27 February 2007 - Dragoman v Commission

(Case F-16/07)

Language of the case: Romanian


Applicant: Adriana Dragoman (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: G. Dinulescu, lawyer)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

Annul the verbal decision of the selection board of Competition EPSO/AD/34/06 of 28 November 2006 by which that selection board awarded the applicant an 'eliminating mark' for the first oral interpretation test, which mark, pursuant to the notice of that competition, did not permit the applicant to take the following oral interpretation tests or the final oral test;

Annul the written decision confirming the abovementioned decision, which was added to the applicant's EPSO file on 12 December [2006];

Run the competition again especially for the applicant, in strict compliance with all the provisions of Community law and the provisions of the notice of competition;

Find and declare that Article 6 of Annex III to the Staff Regulations of Officials is unlawful;

Order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of her claim, the applicant raises three pleas in law, the first of which alleges infringement of the principle of equality and non-discrimination. In the first part of that plea, the applicant alleges that she was the subject of discrimination by reason of nationality, contrary inter alia to Article 27 of the Staff Regulations. After having supplied evidence of her Belgian nationality, she was requested to prove her Romanian nationality. In the second part, she argues that the selection board discriminated against candidates who, like her, did not already work for the institutions as temporary or contractual agents.

In her second plea, the applicant alleges infringement of the provisions of the notice of competition and of the principle of sound administration. Firstly, during her test, she was asked to speak about her professional experience even though no professional experience was required of candidates who, like her, held a university degree in conference interpreting. Secondly, the selection board established and applied pass quotas based on the linguistic combinations chosen by the candidates without such a possibility being provided for in the notice of competition.

In her third plea, the applicant alleges infringement of the duty to give reasons.