EUR-Lex Access to European Union law
This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62017TN0202
Case T-202/17: Action brought on 31 March 2017 — Calhau Correia de Paiva v Commission
Case T-202/17: Action brought on 31 March 2017 — Calhau Correia de Paiva v Commission
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)
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:
|
— |
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. |