Access to European Union law
<a href="https://eur-lex.europa.eu/content/help/eurlex-content/experimental-features.html" target="_blank">More about the experimental features corner</a>
Choose the experimental features you want to try
EUR-Lex
Access to European Union law

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

You are here
Use quotation marks to search for an "exact phrase". Append an asterisk (*) to a search term to find variations of it (transp*, 32019R*). Use a question mark (?) instead of a single character in your search term to find variations of it (ca?e finds case, cane, care).
Search tips
Need more search options? Use the Advanced search

Document 62017TN0761

    Case T-761/17: Action brought on 17 November 2017 — UR v Commission

    OJ C 32, 29.1.2018, p. 39–39 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

    29.1.2018   

    EN

    Official Journal of the European Union

    C 32/39

    Action brought on 17 November 2017 — UR v Commission

    (Case T-761/17)

    (2018/C 032/53)

    Language of the case: French

    Parties

    Applicant: UR (represented by: S. Orlandi and T. Martin, lawyers)

    Defendant: European Commission

    Form of order sought

    The applicant claims that the Court should:

    —

    annul the decision of the selection board of 11 August 2017, taken following a review, not to include his name on the reserve list for Competition EPSO/AD/322/16;

    —

    in any event, order the Commission to pay the costs.

    Pleas in law and main arguments

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

    1.

    First plea in law, alleging that the selection board made a manifest error of assessment in considering that the applicant’s diploma did not satisfy one of the conditions for admission to the competition.

    2.

    Second plea in law, alleging, in the alternative, that the competition notice is unlawful, based on the first paragraph of Article 27 of the Staff Regulations of Officials [of the European Union]. In particular, the applicant argues that the condition for admission at issue is not connected with the requirements of the posts to be filled as described in the competition notice and is, therefore, contrary to the interests of the service.

    3.

    Third plea in law, alleging, in the further alternative, that the contested decision lacks a statement of reasons, inasmuch as the criteria established by the selection board for assessing the relevance of the applicant’s diploma in the light of the condition for admission at issue have not been disclosed, which the applicant argues has prevented him from being able to prepare an adequate defence.
    Top