Action brought on 30 November 2020 — OJ v Commission

(Case T-709/20)

(2021/C 28/96)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: OJ (represented by: H. von Harpe, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—	annul the decision of the European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) of 1 September 2020, ref. Ares(2020)s. 5088474, and all related acts;

—

reopen competition EPSO/AD/380/19 for the recruitment reserve for the European Commission of administrators (AD7/AD9) in the field of international cooperation and management of aid to non-EU countries, in accordance with the rules and, in particular, with a reasonable period for the applicant to register;

—

in the alternative, repeat open competition EPSO/AD/380/19 for the recruitment reserve for the European Commission of administrators (AD7/AD9) in the field of international cooperation and management of aid to non-EU countries, in accordance with the rules and, in particular, with a reasonable deadline for applications; and

—	order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The present action seeks the annulment of the decision of the European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) concerning the refusal to allow the applicant to take part in the computer-based multiple-choice tests outside the test period laid down for open competition EPSO/AD/380/19.

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

First plea in law, alleging unequal treatment

—

The defendant acted in a manner which amounted to unequal treatment. It did not compare comparable situations. Due to his work for an EU delegation, the applicant suffered from security and mobility restrictions which did not allow him to travel abroad at short notice. In addition, in his absence, there was no supervisor for his children.

—

It required lengthy planning in advance to travel abroad from his place of employment. EPSO should have duly appreciated and taken that into account. Instead, it compares the applicant's situation in his place of employment with other applicants who, however, live in countries with a much better security situation. The result is that candidates such as the applicant would be constantly disadvantaged because of a security situation for which they are not responsible.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the duty of care

—

Furthermore, the defendant had infringed its duty of care towards the applicant. He was in any case exposed to an increased security risk in his place of employment. Instead of appreciating that and making it as easy as possible for the applicant to participate in the selection procedure, EPSO insisted on the fixed and strict test periods.

—	Thus, the applicant was obliged to take considerable security risks and possibly even infringe local regulations. That is contrary to the duty of care towards the applicant who, as another employee, was also subject to the scope of protection of the duty of care.