Help Print this page 

Document 62017TN0202

Title and reference
Case T-202/17: Action brought on 31 March 2017 — Calhau Correia de Paiva v Commission

OJ C 195, 19.6.2017, p. 31–32 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
Languages, formats and link to OJ
BG ES CS DA DE ET EL EN FR GA HR IT LV LT HU MT NL PL PT RO SK SL FI SV
HTML html BG html ES html CS html DA html DE html ET html EL html EN html FR html HR html IT html LV html LT html HU html MT html NL html PL html PT html RO html SK html SL html FI html SV
PDF pdf BG pdf ES pdf CS pdf DA pdf DE pdf ET pdf EL pdf EN pdf FR pdf HR pdf IT pdf LV pdf LT pdf HU pdf MT pdf NL pdf PL pdf PT pdf RO pdf SK pdf SL pdf FI pdf SV
Official Journal Display Official Journal Display Official Journal Display Official Journal Display Official Journal Display Official Journal Display Official Journal Display Official Journal Display Official Journal Display Official Journal Display Official Journal Display Official Journal Display Official Journal Display Official Journal Display Official Journal Display Official Journal Display Official Journal Display Official Journal Display Official Journal Display Official Journal Display Official Journal Display Official Journal Display Official Journal Display Official Journal
 To see if this document has been published in an e-OJ with legal value, click on the icon above (For OJs published before 1st July 2013, only the paper version has legal value).
Multilingual display
Text

19.6.2017   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 195/31


Action brought on 31 March 2017 — Calhau Correia de Paiva v Commission

(Case T-202/17)

(2017/C 195/44)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Ana Calhau Correia de Paiva (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: V. Villante and G. Pandey, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Annul and set aside the following decisions and acts, where appropriate having previously declared illegal and not applicable to the applicant the Notice of Competition EPSO/AD/293/14 and the linguistic regime at issue under Article 277 TFEU:

the decision of the European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) and of the Selection Board of 09/11/15 not to include the name of the candidate on the reserve list drawn from the competition EPSO/AD/293/14;

the decision of EPSO and of the Selection Board of 23/06/2016 not to reconsider the decision of 09/11/2015 and not to re-admit the candidate’s name on the reserve list;

the decision of EPSO of 22/12/2016 to respond unfavorably to the applicant’s administrative complaint under Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations against the decision of the Selection Board not to enter her name in the reserve list of competition EPSO/AD/293/14 and against the negative review decision.

the reserve list of the competition EPSO/AD/293/14.

Order the European Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on five pleas in law.

1.

First plea in law, alleging the breach of Article 1 of the Staff Regulations, of the principle of non-discrimination, of the principle of proportionality, and of the principle of equal opportunity with regard to the imposition by EPSO of a QWERTY EN, AZERTY FR/BE or QWERTZ DE keyboard for the realisation of the case study as well as a manifest error of assessment.

2.

Second plea in law, alleging the breach of Regulation No 1 of 1958 with regard to the language regime endorsed and reinforced by the notice competition for EPSO/AD/293/14 together with a plea of illegality and inapplicability of the Notice of Competition EPSO/AD/293/14.

3.

Third plea in law, alleging breach of Article 1 of the Staff Regulations, of the principle of non-discrimination and of the principle of proportionality with regard to EPSO’s and/or the Selection Board’s limiting of the choice of second language of candidates in the competition to German, English and French.

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging breach of the principle of equal opportunity with regard to the examination procedure for EPSO’s competition.

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging breach of Article 296(2) TFEU and Article 25 of the Staff Regulations with regard to EPSO’s failure to state reasons for their decisions to endorse and promote a particular language regime and also alleging that the notice of competition and Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental rights of the European Union were breached when EPSO pursued functions which are attributed to the Selection Board.


Top