Action brought on 19 October 2023 – Markov v Commission
(Case T-1050/23)
Language of the case: English
Parties
Applicant: Yavor Markov (Sofia, Bulgaria) (represented by: I. Stoynev, lawyer)
Defendant: European Commission
Form of order sought
The applicant claims that the Court should:
annul the decision of the selection board of 29 November 2022, the decision of the selection board of 28 February 2023 and the implied decision of the European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) of 20 July 2023;
award under Article 270 TFEU compensation for damage which the applicant claims to have suffered following/as a result of EPSO competition for Bulgarian-language lawyer-linguists EPSO/AD/383/21 (AD7) as applicant no. 4657756, where he reached the final stage of the competition, namely the Assessment Centre;
order the Commission to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law.
First plea in law, alleging that EPSO could not lawfully change the structure and the scope of the oral presentation tests and therefore the decision of 29 November 2022 must be annulled.
Тhe material irregularities in the competition process and the instances of non-compliance with the law resulted in the breach of the applicant’s legitimate expectations as to the structure and scope of the oral presentation (OP) Test. EPSO could not lawfully change the structure and the scope of the OP Test by adding a third, separate segment dedicated solely to knowledge of EU law.
Second plea in law, alleging that EPSO unlawfully provided the applicant with inaccurate, unclear, ambiguous, inconsistent, and contradictory information and therefore the decision of 29 November 2022 must be annulled.
EPSO made several relevant pronouncements, publicly on its official website and privately in its messages to the applicant. They are binding on EPSO in accordance with the right to good administration enshrined in Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’) and the principle of patere legem quam ipse fecisti. The applicant relied on this information in his approach to the OP Test and formed respective legitimate expectations. The information provided by EPSO as above turned out to be inaccurate, unclear, ambiguous, inconsistent and contradictory. As a direct consequence of this, the applicant underperformed.
Third plea in law, alleging that the decision of 28 February 2023 was unlawful and must be annulled.
The decision of 28 February 2023 is, firstly, unlawful as it does not annul the decision of 29 November 2022, despite the arguments presented in the request for review. Secondly, the selection board infringed the applicant’s right to be heard by not considering all of his arguments in his complaint and by considering arguments that he did not make, which is a breach of Article 41(2)(a) of the Charter. Thirdly, the arguments that it did consider it did so perfunctorily, so that the decision amounts to a mere blanket statement. Therefore, for all intents and purposes, the selection board failed to provide reasons for its decision of 28 February 2023, in breach of Article 296, paragraph 2, TFEU, Article 41(2)(c) of the Charter and its duty under the Code 1 to justify its decisions, as the decision did not clearly state the reasons on which it was based.
Fourth plea in law, alleging that EPSO’S implied decision of 20 July 2023 must be annulled.
Insofar as EPSO’s implied decision of 20 July 2023 is deemed to confirm the decision of 28 February 2023, it must also be annulled accordingly for the reasons considered above regarding the decision of 28 February 2023.
____________
1 Code of good administrative behaviour for staff of the European Commission in their relations with the public (as cited in the application).