Appeal brought on 19 May 2023 by SE against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 8 March 2023 in Case T-763/21, SE v Commission

(Case C-309/23 P)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: SE (represented by: L. Levi, avocate)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

set aside the judgment under appeal.

consequently, give the appellant the benefit of his application of first instance.

order the Commission to pay all the costs of both the appeal and of the first instance.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the appeal, the appellant relies on 11 pleas in law:

The General Court erred in finding that the claims related to infringement of art. 2 and 9 of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants (“CEOS”) are inadmissible (pars. 33-36).        

The General Court erred in finding that Blue-Book trainees are one of the four categories of staff working for the Commission (par. 78 of the judgement).    

Erroneous qualification of the age discrimination as indirect, instead of direct (para. 56

Erroneous application of the law (para. 70-71 and 75) in justifying indirect discrimination based on legal provisions applicable to direct discrimination.     

Failure to apply the correct “high” standard of proof required to justify discriminatory treatment based on age (pars. 62 to 89)     

Erroneous application of the law in finding legitimate objectives (pars. 62-64 and 65-72)                            

Erroneous interpretation and application of the law (par. 73) in finding that the objectives are of “public interest nature.”            

Erroneous application of the law in finding that Blue-Book trainees were not favored because the Call was also open to other staff categories (paras. 80-81)

Erroneous in finding that the difference of treatment on grounds of age is proportionate (par. 84 to 89)    

The General Court erred (pars. 91 to 96) in finding that the DG Human Resources and Security has received a mandate to impose the requirement of having “a maximum 3 years of professional experience” as an eligibility criterion.

The General Court failed to address the discrepancy between content of the note of information – PERS(2018) 38/2 which provided for “a maximum of 3 years’ experience … accumulated within the 5 years preceding the application” and the requirement imposed by DG HR providing for a “maximum of 3 years professional experience” in general    .

____________