- 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-341/21: Action brought on 21 June 2021 — Rauff-Nisthar v Commission
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62021TN0341
62021TN0341
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
9.8.2021
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
C 320/49
(Case T-341/21)
(2021/C 320/55)
Language of the case: French
Parties
Applicant: Nadya Rauff-Nisthar (Pfinztal, Germany) (represented by: N. de Montigny, lawyer)
Defendant: European Commission
Form of order sought
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—annul the decision of 9 March 2020 and the decision upon review of 19 August 2020 of the European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) Selection Board in respect of competition EPSO/AD/371/19 (AD 7) — 6 — Scientific Research Administrators not to include the applicant’s name on the reserve list;
—in so far as necessary, annul the decision of 15 March 2021 rejecting the complaint;
—request that the applicant’s competition tests and test results, and the results of the next stage, be produced in order to enable a substantive assessment of the results correlating to each irregularity and the significance of the consequences of the stress induced by the irregularities found, pursuant to Article 91 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court;
—order the defendant to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
In support of the action, the applicant relies on a single plea in law, alleging unequal treatment caused by the irregularities that occurred during the tests and influenced the competition results. This plea is divided into four parts.
1.First part, alleging that technical errors occurred in the organisation of the tests for competition EPSO/AD/371/19 (AD 7) — 6 — Scientific Research Administrators, which were acknowledged by the administration and caused the applicant increased stress during the tests.
2.Second part, alleging that the administration failed to exercise due care and to take action to correct those errors.
3.Third part, alleging a failure to take account of the errors when assessing the applicant’s performance and the failure to put in place procedures guaranteeing equality between candidates.
4.Fourth part, alleging a manifest error of assessment of the applicant’s performance.