Action brought on 9 January 2024 –Zardini v Commission

(Case T-9/24)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Alessandro Zardini (Marano di Valpollicella, Italy) (represented by: M. Velardo, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

annul the decision of 22 March 2023 not to include the applicant on the reserve list for competition EPSO/AD/371/19, as he obtained a score of 122.5 points out of 180, which was insufficient to reach the threshold of 124 points out of 180;

annul the decision of the appointing authority of 19 October 2023 by which there was an implied rejection of the administrative appeal brought under Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations of Officials in force on 19 June 2023, following the failure to reply after four months from the date of lodging the internal appeal;

order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on six pleas in law.

First plea in law, alleging an infringement of Article 27 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union (‘the Staff Regulations’) and of the equal treatment of candidates; and a manifest error of assessment.

Second plea in law, alleging a breach of the principle of equal treatment of candidates, the absence of an objective assessment of the candidates and the infringement of Article 5, paragraphs 1 and 3 of Annex III of the Staff Regulations due to a breach of the rules concerning the languages that may be used in the competition.

Third plea in law, alleging a breach of the principle of equal treatment of candidates, the absence of an objective assessment, and the infringement of Article 5 paragraphs 1 and 3 of Annex III of the Staff Regulations because the tests assigned were more complex than those for other candidates. Different ways of carrying out the competition were adopted which did not allow adequate intervals between one test and another. Furthermore, the Selection Board did not ensure the assessment of qualifications at the Talent Screener stage.

Fourth plea in law, alleging a breach of the obligation to state reasons and failure to observe the connected principle of equality of the parties in the proceedings (Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights). The contested decisions are unlawful (Article 90(2) of the Regulations) because the Commission failed to provide adequate reasons for the contested decisions and did not respond to the complaint.

Fifth plea in law, alleging a breach of the principle of equal treatment of the candidates and the absence of an objective assessment due to the lack of stability of the Selection Board.

Sixth plea in law, alleging an infringement of Article 5, paragraph 5, Annex III of the Regulations due to the fact that the Chair did not ensure the ‘shadowing’ function and the reserve list did not contain twice as many candidates as the number of posts covered by the notice of competition.

____________