Action brought on 11 October 2023 – AC v Commission
(Case T-1025/23)
Language of the case: English
Parties
Applicant: AC (represented by: D. Rovetta and V. Villante, lawyers)
Defendant: European Commission
Form of order sought
The applicant claims that the Court should:
annul the European Personnel Selection Office’s (‘EPSO’) implied decision to reject the applicant’s complaint lodged on 1 March 2023 under Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulation of Officials of the European Union;
annul EPSO’s/the Selection Board’s decision of 2 December 2022 rejecting the applicant’s request for review of the decision of the Selection Board not to admit the applicant to the reserve list of Open Competition EPSO/AD/394/21 AD7-2 - Anti-fraud investigators (AD 7);
annul EPSO’s/the Selection Board’s decision of 18 October 2022, published in the applicant’s EPSO account, not to include the applicant in the ‘reserve list’ of successful candidates for the purposes of competition EPSO/AD/394/21 AD7 - 2 - Anti-fraud investigators (AD 7) - Administrators Anti-fraud investigations and operations in the field of customs and trade, tobacco and counterfeit goods;
if needed, by first declaring illegal and not applicable to the applicant and to the case at issue, under Article 277 TFEU, the notice of open competition EPSO/AD/394/21 – Anti-fraud investigators (AD 7) and Anti-fraud experts (AD 9) in the following fields: Field 1: Anti-fraud investigations and operations in the field of EU expenditure and anti-corruption; Field 2: Anti-fraud investigations and operations in the field of customs and trade, tobacco and counterfeit goods, published in the official Journal (OJ 2021 C 405A, p. 1);
award the applicant a compensation of EUR 5000 for the damages incurred because of the abovementioned unlawful contested decisions;
order the European Commission to bear the costs of the present proceedings.
Pleas in law and main arguments
In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law.
First plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment of the applicant’s skills and a breach of the duty to state reasons as provided for in Article 296 TFEU and in Article 25 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union (‘the Staff Regulations’).
Second plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment of the applicant’s skills, a breach of the principle of good and sound administration and the illegality, under Article 277 TFEU, of point 3 concerning the ‘Assessment centre’ in the section on Selection Modalities of the Notice of open competition EPSO/AD/394/21, in the part where it provides that the planned tests may also be conducted online.
Third plea in law, alleging a lack of stability in the composition of the selection board during the oral test of the competition and a lack of sufficient coordination measures implemented to ensure a consistent and objective assessment, equal opportunities and equal treatment of candidates.
Fourth plea in law, alleging a breach of Articles 1, 2, 3 and 4 of Regulation No 1 determining the languages to be used by the European Economic Community, 1 a breach of Articles 1d and 28 of the Staff Regulations as well as of Article 1(1)(f) of Annex III to the Staff Regulations, a breach of the principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination and the illegality, under Article 277 TFEU, of the Notice of open competition EPSO/AD/394/21.
____________
1 OJ 1958 P 17, p. 385.