Official Journal of the European Union

EN

C series

—

C/2025/3555

7.7.2025

(Case T-315/25)

(C/2025/3555)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: JF (represented by: D. Rovetta and V. Villante, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—Annul, first, the decision of the European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO)/Selection Board of 24 May 2024, published in the applicant’s EPSO account, not to include JF in the ‘reserve list’ for the database of successful candidates for the purposes of the Open Competition EPSO/AD/398/22 –Information and Communication Technology (ICT) Experts (AD7/AD8) – Field 4, (<span class="oj-super oj-note-tag">1</span>) which is based on the results outlined in the Competency Passport dated 14 September 2023;

—Annul, second, the decision of 24 July 2024 of EPSO/Selection Board, rejecting the applicant’s request for review of the decision of the Selection Board not to admit him to the next phase of the competition;

—Annul, third, the decision of 18 February 2025 of EPSO, signed by [name omitted], which rejected the applicant’s complaint under Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulation of Officials of the European Union, lodged on 16 October 2024;

—If needed, under Article 277 TFEU, first declare illegal, and not applicable to JF or to the case at issue, the Notice of Open Competition EPSO/AD/398/22 –Information and Communication Technology (ICT) Experts (AD7/AD8) – Field 4, published on 17 February 2022 and in its entirety the reserve list and the names of the candidates placed on it as result of the aforementioned competition.

—Order the European Commission to bear the costs of the present proceedings.

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 of the applicant’s field-related interview, qualifications and professional experience – Normalisation of the grading – Violation of the principles of good administration – Breach of the duty of care – Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights – Procedural and technical irregularities affecting the legality and fairness of the selection process – Breach of section 4.3.5. of the notice of competition.

2.Second plea in law, alleging breach of the duty to state reasons – Article 296 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union – Article 25 of the Staff Regulations.

3.Third plea in law, alleging breach of Article 1 of Regulation No 1 of 1958 determining the languages to be used by the European Economic Community, (<span class="oj-super oj-note-tag">2</span>) as lastly modified by Council Regulation (EU) No 517/2013 of 13 May 2013 (<span class="oj-super oj-note-tag">3</span>) – Breach of Articles 1d and 28 of the Staff Regulations as well as of Article 1(1)(f) of Annex III to the Staff Regulations – Breach of the principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination – Plea of illegality of the Notice of Competition – Article 277 TFEU.

—

(1) OJ C 76 A, 17.2.2022, p. 1.

(2) OJ, English Special Edition: Series I Volume 1952-1958 p. 59.

(3) Council Regulation (EU) No 517/2013 of 13 May 2013 adapting certain regulations and decisions in the fields of free movement of goods, freedom of movement for persons, company law, competition policy, agriculture, food safety, veterinary and phytosanitary policy, transport policy, energy, taxation, statistics, trans-European networks, judiciary and fundamental rights, justice, freedom and security, environment, customs union, external relations, foreign, security and defence policy and institutions, by reason of the accession of the Republic of Croatia (OJ L 158, 10.6.2013, p. 1).

ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/3555/oj

ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)

—