Back to EUR-Lex homepage

EUR-Lex Access to European Union law

Back to EUR-Lex homepage

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

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
You are here

Document 62020TN0705

Case T-705/20: Action brought on 30 November 2020 — OI v Commission

IO C 28, 25.1.2021, p. 63–63 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

25.1.2021   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 28/63

Action brought on 30 November 2020 — OI v Commission

(Case T-705/20)

(2021/C 28/93)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: OI (represented by: S. Orlandi, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—

annul the decision not to include his name on the reserve list for internal competition COM/03/AD/18;

—

order the European Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1.

First plea in law, put forward principally, alleging failure to adequately state reasons. The applicant takes the view that the statement of reasons consists of literal assessments, which are not consistent with the grades awarded. Moreover, the selection panel has not communicated the assessment criteria adopted before the tests, so that neither the applicant nor the appointing authority were able to check the legality of those criteria.

2.

Second plea in law, put forward in the alternative, alleging a manifest error of assessment committed by the selection panel since that panel was not in a position to justify to the requisite legal standard the manifest inconsistencies between the literal assessments and the numerical grades, having regard to a comparison with comparable assessments of other candidates.
Top