Accept Refuse

EUR-Lex Access to European Union law

Back to EUR-Lex homepage

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Document 62014TN0636

Case T-636/14: Action brought on 27 August 2014  — Italy v Commission

OJ C 388, 3.11.2014, p. 20–20 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)



Official Journal of the European Union

C 388/20

Action brought on 27 August 2014 — Italy v Commission

(Case T-636/14)

2014/C 388/24

Language of the case: Italian


Applicant: Italian Republic (represented by: P. Gentili, avvocato dello Stato, G. Palmieri, acting as Agent)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order

The applicant claims that the Court should:

annul the vacancy notice for the post of Director of the Translation Centre for the Bodies of the European Union (Luxembourg), function group AD, grade 14, (COM/2014/10356), published in the Official Journal of the European Union C 185 A of 17 June 2014;

order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The present action is brought against the abovementioned vacancy notice, in so far as applicants are required to apply in English, French or German.

In support of its action, the applicant puts forward two pleas in law.


First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 18 TFEU and the fourth paragraph of Article 24 TFEU; of Article 22 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union; of Articles 1 and 2 of Regulation 1/58; and of Article 1d(1) and (6) of the Staff Regulations (applicable by analogy to temporary staff and referred to in the contested notice).

The applicant claims in this regard that, through the reference to the Commission’s website which set out that binding provision, the notice required applicants compulsorily to submit their CV and motivation letter in English, French or German, rather than in any one of the languages of the European Union.


Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the principles of legitimate expectations and of sincere cooperation (Article 4(3) TEU).

The applicant claims in this regard that, during the process for the adoption of the notice in question, even though the Commission had formally assured the Italian Government that that language discrimination would be removed, it instead acted in the opposite manner when drafting the notice and preparing the rules for the functioning of the website to which the notice refers for the submission of applications.