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-195/25: Action brought on 20 March 2025 – Erlbacher v Commission

ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62025TN0195

62025TN0195

March 20, 2025
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

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

C series

C/2025/2691

(Case T-195/25)

(C/2025/2691)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Friedrich Erlbacher (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: L. Levi, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

declare the present action admissible and well-founded;

annul the decision of 11 June 2024 (N° R/481/24) by which the appointing authority rejected the applicant’s application for the position of director (AGRI.G) at the Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development;

in so far as is necessary, annul the decision of 11 December 2024 rejecting the applicant’s complaint;

order the defendant to pay all the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

First plea in law, alleging manifest error of assessment in so far as the contested decision disregards the vacancy notice and the rules to which that notice refers. The applicant submits that the appointing authority should have interpreted the vacancy notice and the rules to which that notice refers as meaning that the requirement for two years’ experience in a middle management function, in accordance with the decision on middle management staff, does not apply in the applicant’s case.

Second plea in law, alleging that the vacancy notice and the rules to which that notice refers infringe the principle of non-discrimination, the principle that officials should have reasonable career prospects and Articles 27 and 29 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union (‘the Staff Regulations’) and are not consistent with the interest of the service. Even if that eligibility criterion applies in a case like the applicant’s, the applicant claims, by way of a plea of illegality, that the vacancy notice and the rules to which that notice refers and, in consequence, the contested decision infringe a number of general principles and the provisions of the Staff Regulations.

ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/2691/oj

ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)

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