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 62017TN0830

    Case T-830/17: Action brought on 22 December 2017 — Szentes v Commission

    IO C 63, 19.2.2018, 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)

    19.2.2018   

    EN

    Official Journal of the European Union

    C 63/20

    Action brought on 22 December 2017 — Szentes v Commission

    (Case T-830/17)

    (2018/C 063/27)

    Language of the case: French

    Parties

    Applicant: Gyula Szentes (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: F. Moyse, lawyer)

    Defendant: European Commission

    Form of order sought

    —

    Annul the decision of 24 February 2017 and, insofar as necessary, the act rejecting the applicant’s claim of 29 September 2017;

    —

    Order the Commission to pay the costs.

    Pleas in law and main arguments

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

    1.

    First plea in law, alleging the unlawfulness of the competition notice. The applicant argues that Article 6.4 of Annex III, which precludes requests for review made by reason of a challenge to the assessment made by the selection board having a positive result, is unlawful, being contrary to the right to an effective remedy provided for in Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. The contested decision, which is based on that provision, is accordingly unlawful.

    2.

    Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the obligation to state reasons. The contested decision merely cites extracts from case-law and does not set out the list of selection criteria drawn up by the selection board prior to the assessment of the application forms.

    3.

    Third plea in law, alleging distortion of the facts and a manifest error of assessment. The applicant criticises, in that regard, the manner in which the selection board assessed the data entered in the application form.

    4.

    Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the competition notice. The applicant submits that the selection board failed to cross-match the various sections of the application form in order to decide whether the applicant met one of the conditions for admission to the competition.
    Top