Language of document :

Action brought on 30 October 2007 - Coto Moreno v Commission

(Case F-127/07)

Language of the case: French


Applicant: Juana Maria Coto Moreno (Gaborone, Botswana) (represented by: K. Lemmens and C. Doutrelepont, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

Annul the decision of 12 February 2007 by which the selection board for competition EPSO/AD/28/05 refused to include the applicant in the reserve list for that competition, and consequently:

award her damages and interest of EUR 25 000 as compensation for non-material loss;

award her damages to cover legal fees estimated at EUR 8 000 as shown in the attached document;

declare, principally, that the competent authorities must adopt all appropriate measures fairly to compensate for the disadvantage caused by the annulled measure, that is to say the inclusion of the applicant in the reserve list or

award the applicant, failing such inclusion, in the alternative, compensation by way of damages and interest for her material loss in the amount of EUR 384 000;

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant participated in the EPSO/AD/28/05 competition. The competition selection board refused to include the applicant in the reserve list for that competition by decision of 12 February 2007, which the applicant seeks to have annulled.

In support of her action, the applicant raises four pleas in law:

The first plea alleges, principally, a manifest error of appraisal either alone or in conjunction with a failure to state reasons and/or breach of the principle patere legem quam ipse fecisti. The selection board, whose position in that regard is ambiguous, took the view that the applicant gave 'sufficient' answers which nevertheless had weak points. That was manifestly not the case, particularly as the applicant answered in accordance with the Commission rules.

The second plea alleges, also principally, breach of the notice of competition and of the principle of equality either alone or in conjunction with compliance with the principle of reasonableness.

The third plea, also principally, alleges breach of the duty to state reasons in that the applicant clearly asked the selection board why an answer which she gave in the oral test was considered incorrect or at least insufficient. The applicant has not received any response despite the duty to state reasons.

Finally and in the alternative, the applicant alleges a manifest error of appraisal either alone or in conjunction with the principle of equality and the principle of proportionality. The mark awarded was, in addition, disproportionate in relation to the results (she was given the mark of 25/50) and is in breach of the principle of equality since the applicant was treated like any other candidate who gave answers considered sufficient, not only with regard to knowledge but also with regard to other criteria.