This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62017TN0137
Case T-137/17: Action brought on 3 March 2017 — Kakol v Commission
Case T-137/17: Action brought on 3 March 2017 — Kakol v Commission
Case T-137/17: Action brought on 3 March 2017 — Kakol v Commission
IO C 144, 8.5.2017, p. 51–52
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
8.5.2017 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 144/51 |
Action brought on 3 March 2017 — Kakol v Commission
(Case T-137/17)
(2017/C 144/70)
Language of the case: French
Parties
Applicant: Danuta Kakol (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: R. Duta, lawyer)
Defendant: European Commission
Form of order sought
— |
Annul the decisions of the selection board of 25 November 2016 and 2 May 2016 according to which the applicant’s candidature, pre-qualified for competition EPSO/AD/177/10-AUDIT2013-Administrators-D5, was rejected; |
— |
Order the defendant to make payment of the amount of EUR 5 000, otherwise for any other amount, even greater, to be set by the Court in compensation for the vexatious manner in which the applicant’s candidature was handled; |
— |
Order all duties ascribed by law to be undertaken; |
— |
Order the defendant to pay all the costs and fees of the case. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
The present action is brought in essence against the decisions of 25 November 2016 and [2] May 2016 according to which the applicant’s candidature for the EPSO/AD/177/10-AUDIT2013-Administrators-D5 competition, was rejected on the ground that she did not satisfy the conditions for admissions as regards the education requirements.
In support of the action, the applicant relies on five pleas in law.
1. |
First plea in law, alleging a lack of delegation by the selection board as regards the decision of 2 May 2016.
|
2. |
Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of legitimate expectations, legal certainty and estoppel.
|
3. |
Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination. |
4. |
Fourth plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment in the present case.
|
5. |
Fifth plea in law, alleging an abuse of power and lack of proportionality.
|