EUR-Lex & EU Commission AI-Powered Semantic Search Engine
Modern Legal
  • Query in any language with multilingual search
  • Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
  • See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Start free trial

Similar Documents

Explore similar documents to your case.

We Found Similar Cases for You

Sign up for free to view them and see the most relevant paragraphs highlighted.

Case T-147/23: Action brought on 17 March 2023 — VI v Commission

ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62023TN0147

62023TN0147

March 17, 2023
With Google you find a lot.
With us you find everything. Try it now!

I imagine what I want to write in my case, I write it in the search engine and I get exactly what I wanted. Thank you!

Valentina R., lawyer

22.5.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 179/61

(Case T-147/23)

(2023/C 179/86)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: VI (represented by: M. Velardo, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

annul the following decisions:

decision of 20 May 2022 by which the applicant was informed that she had obtained 53 points for the assessment by Talent Screener in Competition EPSO/AST/150/21 for laboratory technicians, whereas the minimum number of points for admission to the next stage was 57 points; and

decision of the appointing authority of 8 December 2022, ARES (2022) s.9324205, rejecting the complaint lodged on 14 June 2022 and registered under number No R/30/22 under Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations of Officials and the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1.First plea in law, alleging manifest error of assessment in the evaluation of the diplomas and of the length of the applicant’s professional experience, which was arbitrarily reduced by the Selection Board, and infringement of the competition notice, which did not allow for redistribution of the length of professional experience within the various criteria of the Talent Screener.

2.Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 1(1) of Annex III to the Staff Regulations, in so far as the Selection Board did not have the power to determine the weighting factors.

3.Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Articles 27 and 29 of, and of the first paragraph of Article 5 of Annex III to, the Staff Regulations, in so far as the Selection Board failed to ascertain the accuracy of the degrees and professional experience declared by the candidates in the Talent Screener before drawing up the list of candidates admitted to the next stage at the assessment centre.

EurLex Case Law

AI-Powered Case Law Search

Query in any language with multilingual search
Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly

Get Instant Answers to Your Legal Questions

Cancel your subscription anytime, no questions asked.Start 14-Day Free Trial

At Modern Legal, we’re building the world’s best search engine for legal professionals. Access EU and global case law with AI-powered precision, saving you time and delivering relevant insights instantly.

Contact Us

Tivolska cesta 48, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia