Official Journal of the European Union

EN

Series C

C/2023/989

27.11.2023

(Case T-613/23)

(C/2023/989)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: James Flett (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: L. Levi, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—annul the decision of 25 January 2023 appointing ‘H’ as Principal Legal Advisor of the European Commission Legal Service Trade Policy and WTO Team (and not appointing the applicant);

—annul the response to the Complaint (No R/139/23) of 27 June 2023 (C(2003) 4042 final);

—compensate the applicant for the injury caused to him;

—order measures of organisation of procedure pursuant to Articles 89-90 of the General Court’s Rules of Procedure; and

—order the defendant to pay the entire costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1.First plea in law, alleging non-compliance with sections 5.2.6 and 5.2.7 of the Senior Management Decision and Article 1(1) of the Consultative Committee on Appointment (CCA)’s Rules of Procedure and breach of the principle of sound administration.

—The applicant’s first argument under this ground refers to the correct manner of interpreting and applying the central provisions of the Senior Management Decision and the CCA Rules of Procedure.

—Secondly, it is submitted that the applicant was found by the Pre-Selection Panel and the CCA (first phase) to be a ‘suitably qualified candidate’ ‘with reference to the published criteria’ and that this finding was not reversed in the CCA (second phase) assessment.

—Thirdly, reference is made to the phrase ‘right mix of skills and experience’ — a disguised assessment of the comparative merits of ‘suitably qualified candidates’ ‘with reference to the published criteria’; the applicant refers in this regard to an assessment that is reserved to the Commissioners, the argument being that the applicant was unlawfully denied an interview with the President.

—Fourthly, the applicant maintains that the alleged violation is not remedied by the existence of a provision permitting the President to call the applicant for interview, a possibility not exercised in this case.

2.Second plea in law, asserting two claims of manifest errors of assessment.

3.Third plea in law, alleging that the contested decisions are based on the Commission decision on gender equality policy, which is, in the relevant part, unlawful.

4.Fourth plea in law, alleging that the contested decisions are based on the President’s delegating decision ‘by oral instruction’ — and in this respect the applicant asserts a lack of reasoning and breach of the principle of legal certainty.

ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2023/989/oj

ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)