EUR-Lex Access to European Union law

Back to EUR-Lex homepage

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Document 62011FA0093

Case F-93/11: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (2nd Chamber) of 21 March 2013 — Taghani v Commission (Civil service — Open competition — Selection board’s decision not to admit to the assessment tests — Remedies — Court action brought without waiting for a decision on the administrative complaint — Admissibility — Amendment of the competition notice after admission tests held — Principle of the protection of legitimate expectations — Legal certainty)

OJ C 147, 25.5.2013, p. 32–32 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

25.5.2013   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 147/32


Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (2nd Chamber) of 21 March 2013 — Taghani v Commission

(Case F-93/11) (1)

(Civil service - Open competition - Selection board’s decision not to admit to the assessment tests - Remedies - Court action brought without waiting for a decision on the administrative complaint - Admissibility - Amendment of the competition notice after admission tests held - Principle of the protection of legitimate expectations - Legal certainty)

2013/C 147/58

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Jamal Taghani (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S. Rodrigues and A. Blot, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and B. Eggers, Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of the decision adopted by the chairman of the selection board for Competition EPSO/AST/111/10 — Secretaries (AST 1) not to admit the applicant to the assessment tests.

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

1.

Annuls the decision of the selection board for open competition EPSO/AST/111/10, of 15 June 2011, not to admit Mr Taghani to the assessment tests;

2.

Orders the European Commission to pay EUR 1 000 to Mr Taghani;

3.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

4.

Orders each party to bear its own costs.


(1)  OJ C 347, 26.11.2011, p. 46.


Top