This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62014FB0105
Case F-105/14: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 22 April 2015 — ED v ENISA (Civil service — Temporary staff member — Selection procedure — Decision rejecting an application, during the pre-selection stage, following examination by a selection board — No complaint lodged within the time-limit laid down in the Staff Regulations against the decision rejecting the application — Request for information — Reply from the authority authorised to conclude employment contracts not including a review of the decision rejecting the application — Complaint lodged against that reply — Failure to comply with the pre-litigation procedure — Manifest inadmissibility — Article 81 of the Rules of Procedure)
Case F-105/14: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 22 April 2015 — ED v ENISA (Civil service — Temporary staff member — Selection procedure — Decision rejecting an application, during the pre-selection stage, following examination by a selection board — No complaint lodged within the time-limit laid down in the Staff Regulations against the decision rejecting the application — Request for information — Reply from the authority authorised to conclude employment contracts not including a review of the decision rejecting the application — Complaint lodged against that reply — Failure to comply with the pre-litigation procedure — Manifest inadmissibility — Article 81 of the Rules of Procedure)
Case F-105/14: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 22 April 2015 — ED v ENISA (Civil service — Temporary staff member — Selection procedure — Decision rejecting an application, during the pre-selection stage, following examination by a selection board — No complaint lodged within the time-limit laid down in the Staff Regulations against the decision rejecting the application — Request for information — Reply from the authority authorised to conclude employment contracts not including a review of the decision rejecting the application — Complaint lodged against that reply — Failure to comply with the pre-litigation procedure — Manifest inadmissibility — Article 81 of the Rules of Procedure)
OJ C 190, 8.6.2015, p. 32–33
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
8.6.2015 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 190/32 |
Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 22 April 2015 — ED v ENISA
(Case F-105/14) (1)
((Civil service - Temporary staff member - Selection procedure - Decision rejecting an application, during the pre-selection stage, following examination by a selection board - No complaint lodged within the time-limit laid down in the Staff Regulations against the decision rejecting the application - Request for information - Reply from the authority authorised to conclude employment contracts not including a review of the decision rejecting the application - Complaint lodged against that reply - Failure to comply with the pre-litigation procedure - Manifest inadmissibility - Article 81 of the Rules of Procedure))
(2015/C 190/37)
Language of the case: English
Parties
Applicant: ED (represented by: S.A. Pappas, lawyer)
Defendant: European Union Agency for Network and Information Security (ENISA) (represented by: A. Ryan, acting as Agent, and by D. Waelbroeck and A. Duron, lawyers)
Re:
Action for the annulment of the decision not to retain the applicant’s application for the post of ‘Legal Officer’ in response to Vacancy Notice ENISA-TA-AD-2013-05.
Operative part of the order
1. |
The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible. |
2. |
ED shall bear her own costs and pay the costs incurred by the European Union Agency for Network and Information Security. |
(1) OJ C 7 of 12.1.2015, p. 53.