Action brought on 15 January 2024 – UT v Commission

(Case T-27/24)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: UT (represented by: N. de Montigny, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

annul the decision of 6 April 2023;

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action brought against the review decision of 6 April 2023 of the selection board in Competition EPSO/AD/398/22-4 confirming the decision not to include his name on the list of persons invited to the assessment centre, the applicant relies on four pleas in law.

1.    First plea in law, alleging a lack of legal certainty of the notice of competition stemming from its vague wording;

2.    Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the notice of competition by the administration and a failure to assess the various criteria and competencies required by that notice;

3.    Third plea in law, alleging a lack of reasoning for the scores obtained by the applicant, with the result that he is unable to understand the scores that he obtained for each reply or to verify their validity, and a lack of a personal and individual decision rejecting his request for review;

4.    Fourth plea in law, alleging a manifest error in the assessment of the applicant’s replies, in that there are errors and inconsistencies between the questions asked and the scores that he obtained, as well as a manifest error in the assessment of his replies to questions 4 and 8 and the existence of possible technical errors that might explain that error.

____________