This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document C2007/129/50
Case F-40/07: Action brought on 30 April 2007 — Baudelet-Leclaire v Commission
Case F-40/07: Action brought on 30 April 2007 — Baudelet-Leclaire v Commission
Case F-40/07: Action brought on 30 April 2007 — Baudelet-Leclaire v Commission
IO C 129, 9.6.2007, p. 28–29
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
9.6.2007 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 129/28 |
Action brought on 30 April 2007 — Baudelet-Leclaire v Commission
(Case F-40/07)
(2007/C 129/50)
Language of the case: French
Parties
Applicant: Cécile Baudelet-Leclaire (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: M. Korving, lawyer)
Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
Form of order sought
|
— |
Declare that there has been discrimination between candidates ‘internal ’to the European institutions and external candidates in Competition EPSO/AST/7/05 (1); |
|
— |
Declare that the defendant has produced no evidence of the absence of discrimination between candidates ‘internal ’to the European institutions and external candidates in that competition; |
|
— |
Annul the said competition on the ground of a breach of the fundamental principle of equal opportunity between the candidates; |
|
— |
In the alternative, order the defendant to produce evidence including, if necessary, the proceedings of the selection board covered by the obligation of secrecy contained in Article 6 of Annex III to the Staff Regulations, showing that the selection board did not favour certain candidates on account of their professional background; |
|
— |
In the absence of evidence produced by the defendant, order a revision of the classification of all candidates on the sole basis of merit, as indicated in the competition notice and as required by the impartial application of the principle of equal opportunity between candidates; |
|
— |
Order the defendant to pay the costs. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
By letter of 29 January 2007, the applicant was informed that her name was not on the reserve list inasmuch as the marks she had obtained, although above the required minimum, were not among the 110 highest marks awarded.
In support of her application, the applicant relies, in particular, on a breach of the principle of equal opportunity, inasmuch as the selection board discriminated between candidates in favour of those who already had work experience in the Community institutions, in particular in the directorate general to which the president of the selection board belongs.