- Query in any language with multilingual search
- Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
- See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Similar Documents
Explore similar documents to your case.We Found Similar Cases for You
Case T-36/21: Judgment of the General Court of 30 March 2022 — PO v Commission (Civil service — Officials — Recruitment — Notice of open competition EPSO/AD/338/17 — Non-inclusion on the reserve list — Article 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights — Article 1d(1) and (4) of the Staff Regulations — Reasonable accommodation — Principle of non-discrimination on the ground of disability — Directive 2000/78/EC — Obligation to state reasons — Duty to have regard for the welfare of officials — Responsibility — Material and non-material damage)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62021TA0036
62021TA0036
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
23.5.2022
Official Journal of the European Union
C 207/38
(Case T-36/21) (<span class="oj-super oj-note-tag">1</span>)
(Civil service - Officials - Recruitment - Notice of open competition EPSO/AD/338/17 - Non-inclusion on the reserve list - Article 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights - Article 1d(1) and (4) of the Staff Regulations - Reasonable accommodation - Principle of non-discrimination on the ground of disability - Directive 2000/78/EC - Obligation to state reasons - Duty to have regard for the welfare of officials - Responsibility - Material and non-material damage)
(2022/C 207/50)
Language of the case: French
Parties
Applicant: PO (represented by: L. Levi and A. Blot, lawyers)
Defendant: European Commission (represented by: I. Melo Sampaio and D. Milanowska, acting as Agents)
Re:
By his action under Article 270 TFEU, the applicant seeks, first, annulment of the decision of the competition selection board of 29 April 2020, taken following a review, not to include his name on the reserve list for Open Competition EPSO/AD/338/17 as well as the decision of the appointing authority of 14 October 2020 rejecting his complaint and, second, compensation for the harm he allegedly suffered as a result of those decisions.
Operative part of the judgment
The Court:
1.Dismisses the action;
2.Orders each party to bear its own costs.
Language of the case: French
* * *
(<span class="oj-super">1</span>) OJ C 110, 29.3.2021.