EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 293/38

(Case T-422/17)

(2017/C 293/48)

Language of the case: Lithuanian

Parties

Applicant: UF (represented by: L. Gudaitė, lawyer)

Defendant: European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

—annul the defendant’s decision of 4 April 2017 to eliminate the applicant from the Lithuanian-language lawyer-linguist competition EPSO/AD/335/16;

—oblige the defendant to allow the applicant to correct a clear error, by altering the level of knowledge of the Polish language from B1 to C1;

—restore the applicant to the Lithuanian-language lawyer-linguist competition.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1.The basis of the first plea in law is that the defendant infringed the applicant’s legitimate expectations and misled him when it confirmed that his application to participate in the competition met all the requirements.

—The applicant states that the defendant, having confirmed on 9 January 2017 that his application met all the requirements of the competition notice and having allowed him to participate in the computer-based tests, misled him and did not grant him the opportunity of correcting a clear clerical error relating to the level of knowledge of the Polish language and on account of which he was later eliminated from the competition.

2.The basis of the second plea in law is that the defendant infringed the applicant’s rights and legitimate expectations when it eliminated him from the competition for Lithuanian-language lawyer-linguist posts.

—The applicant maintains that, by the decision of 4 April 2017, the defendant, in taking account of the level of knowledge of the Polish language specified in the application, eliminated him from the competition unjustifiably, because the defendant is aware of his actual level of knowledge of the Polish language on the basis of the information provided in the application for another competition (EPSO/AD/328/16) and of the results of that competition. The applicant states that, according to the case-law of the General Court, the selection board is responsible for duly assessing the diplomas or degrees submitted or the professional competence presented by each candidate, and its decision to eliminate a candidate from a competition is considered to be an act adversely affecting a person, as envisaged in Article 91(1) of the Staff Regulations.