This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62019TA0575
Case T-575/19: Judgment of the General Court of 9 June 2021 — Hill Mansilla v Commission (Civil service — Officials — Promotion — 2018 promotion exercise — Decision not to promote — Comparative examination of the merits — Assessment criteria — Manifest error of assessment — Equal treatment — Non-discrimination)
Case T-575/19: Judgment of the General Court of 9 June 2021 — Hill Mansilla v Commission (Civil service — Officials — Promotion — 2018 promotion exercise — Decision not to promote — Comparative examination of the merits — Assessment criteria — Manifest error of assessment — Equal treatment — Non-discrimination)
Case T-575/19: Judgment of the General Court of 9 June 2021 — Hill Mansilla v Commission (Civil service — Officials — Promotion — 2018 promotion exercise — Decision not to promote — Comparative examination of the merits — Assessment criteria — Manifest error of assessment — Equal treatment — Non-discrimination)
OJ C 297, 26.7.2021, p. 36–36
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
26.7.2021 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 297/36 |
Judgment of the General Court of 9 June 2021 — Hill Mansilla v Commission
(Case T-575/19) (1)
(Civil service - Officials - Promotion - 2018 promotion exercise - Decision not to promote - Comparative examination of the merits - Assessment criteria - Manifest error of assessment - Equal treatment - Non-discrimination)
(2021/C 297/42)
Language of the case: French
Parties
Applicant: Élise Hill Mansilla (Rodemack, France) (represented by: R. Mbonyumutwa, lawyer)
Defendant: European Commission (represented by: M. Brauhoff and L. Vernier, acting as Agents)
Re:
Application based on Article 270 TFEU and seeking, first, annulment of the Commission’s decision of 13 November 2018 not to include the applicant’s name in the final list of promoted officials in the 2018 promotion exercise and, second, compensation for the non-material and material damages allegedly suffered by the applicant on account of that decision.
Operative part of the judgment
The Court:
|
1. |
Dismisses the action; |
|
2. |
Orders Ms Élise Hill Mansilla to pay the costs. |