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-572/20: Action brought on 7 September 2020 — Spisto v Commission

ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62020TN0572

62020TN0572

September 7, 2020
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

3.11.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 371/27

(Case T-572/20)

(2020/C 371/31)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Amanda Spisto (Amsterdam, Netherlands) (represented by: N. de Montigny, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

annul the decision of 24 September 2019 rejecting her request for review of competition EPSO/AD/371/19 — Field 1;

annul, in so far as is necessary, the decision dated 26 May 2020 rejecting the complaint;

order the defendant to pay the costs.

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 illegality of the competition notice on the basis of which the contested decision was adopted, on the ground that it breached the principles of legal certainty, transparency and predictability, not only in the assessment of the selection criteria but also as regards the ‘relevance’ to be assessed and found by the members of the EPSO selection board in the ‘talent screener’ test.

2.Second plea in law, alleging that no statement of reasons was given for the contested decision. The applicant submits that, after the EPSO selection board’s decision, it was not possible to ascertain from the contested decision how the assessment was made, the criteria that were used or the way in which relevance to questions was determined.

3.Third plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is vitiated by a manifest error of assessment.

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