6 September 2011 (*1)

(Staff case – Recruitment – Open competition – EPSO decision to extend by six hours the period for submitting applications – Referral to the Civil Service Tribunal)

In Case T-282/11,

Ciprian-Calin Alionescu, residing in Etterbeek (Belgium), represented by M. Stănculescu, lawyer,

applicant,

European Communities Personnel Selection Office (EPSO),

defendant,

APPLICATION for annulment of the EPSO decision to extend by six hours the period for the submission of applications in open competition EPSO/AD/206-207/11 and the adoption of measures consequent on that annulment,

THE GENERAL COURT (Fourth Chamber),

composed of I. Pelikánová (Rapporteur), President, K. Jürimäe and M. van der Woude, Judges,

Registrar: E. Coulon,

makes the following

1.1 By application lodged at the Registry of the General Court on 24 May 2011, the applicant, Mr Ciprian-Calin Alionescu, brought the present action seeking the annulment of the decision of the European Communities Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) to extend by six hours the period for submitting applications in the open competition EPSO/AD/206-207/11 and the adoption of measures consequent on that annulment.

2.2 Under Article 8(2) of Annex I to the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, where the General Court finds that an action falls within the jurisdiction of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal, it shall refer that action to the Civil Service Tribunal.

3.3 Under Article 1 of Annex I to the Statute of the Court, the Civil Service Tribunal is to exercise at first instance jurisdiction in disputes between the European Union and its servants referred to in Article 270 TFEU.

4.4 Article 270 TFEU covers ‘any dispute between the Union and its servants within the limits and under the conditions laid down in the Staff Regulations of Officials and the Conditions of Employment of other servants of the Union’.

5.5 Article 91(1) of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union (‘the Staff Regulations’) states, in this context, that the Courts of the European Union are to have jurisdiction ‘in any dispute between the Union and any person to whom these Staff Regulations apply regarding the legality of an act adversely affecting such person …’.

6.6 It must therefore be determined whether the action brought by the applicant does or does not fall within the scope of Article 270 TFEU, as specified in Article 91(1) of the Staff Regulations.

7.7 In that regard, it must be observed that by his action the applicant challenges the legality of a decision which he claims was taken by EPSO and adversely affected him.

8.8 Next, the decision concerned is claimed to have been taken in connection with an open competition, in which the applicant was a candidate, aimed at recruiting European Union officials. The recruitment of officials of the European Union is governed, in particular, by Articles 29 to 31 of the Staff Regulations and by Annex III thereto. Consequently, as a candidate in the open competition in question, the applicant is a person covered by the Staff Regulations.

9.9 It follows from the foregoing that the present action falls within the scope of Article 270 TFEU.

10.10 Consequently, the action is subject to the jurisdiction of the Civil Service Tribunal, to which it must be referred.

On those grounds,

THE GENERAL COURT (Fourth Chamber) hereby orders:

Luxembourg, 6 September 2011.

Registrar

President

* Language of the case: English.