Notice for the OJ

 

Action brought on 19 February 2005 by Andrea Balduini against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-77/05)

Language of the case: Italian

An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 19 February 2005 by Andrea Balduini, represented by Gabriele Balduini, lawyer.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

1.    annul Decision ADMIN. B.2-PC/amd-D (2004)27617 of the appointing authority of 12 November 2004, notified by registered letter with advice of receipt dated 15 November 2004, received on 22 November 2004, and disregard questions 11 and 36 of Test A (specialised knowledge of the field) in competition EPSO/A/11/03, or only one of those questions;

2.    accordingly, annul the decision of the selection board for competition EPSO/A/11/03, of which the applicant was informed by communication EPSO/5000LM-EN of 14 May 2004, and determine and declare that the applicant has obtained one of the 450 best marks and, therefore, admit him to the next stages of competition EPSO/A/11/03;

3.    in any event, order the Commission to pay the costs.         

Pleas in law and main arguments:

The applicant in this case participated in open competition EPSO/A/11/03, which provided, in the first stage, for three preselection tests to be held.

By communication of 14 May 2004, the selection board informed the applicant that the overall mark he had obtained in the preselection tests, 44.726 points, was not sufficient for him to be included among the 450 highest-scoring candidates and therefore he had not been admitted to the next stage.

By a subsequent communication, the selection board explained to all the candidates that the marks in the preselection tests had been determined after the selection board had disregarded five questions in those tests (question 17 in Test A, questions 4 and 20 in Test B and questions 45 and 52 in Test C).

The requests to the selection board for amendment, and to EPSO for reconsideration, were rejected. According to those two requests, another two questions in Test A (questions 11 and 36) should be disregarded, inasmuch as they were completely incorrect, illogical and incomprehensible, so that the applicant would become one of the 450 best candidates and be admitted to the next stage. Both requests were rejected.

In support of his claims, the applicant pleads infringement of the principle of equal treatment laid down in Article 5(3) of the Staff Regulations.

____________