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-355/18: Action brought on 8 June 2018 — Spain v Commission

ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62018TN0355

62018TN0355

June 8, 2018
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

201807270032025182018/C 285/543552018TC28520180813EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180608383811

(Case T-355/18)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: M. García-Valdecasas Dorrego, Agent)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Annul the notice of open competitions;

Order the European Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The present action is directed against the notice of open competitions to fill posts in the civil service as administrators (AD 6), EPSO/AD/340/18 and EPSO/AD/341/18.

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

1.First plea in law, alleging infringement of Articles 1 and 2 of Regulation No 1/58, Article 22 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’), and Article 1d of the Staff Regulations, by imposing the restriction, which extends to the application form, that communication between EPSO and the applicant should be solely in English, French and German.

2.Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Articles 1 and 6 of Regulation No 1/58; Article 22 of the Charter; and Article 1d(1) and (6), Article 27 and Article 28(f) of the Staff Regulations, by improperly restricting the selection of the second language to four languages only, namely English, French, German and Italian, thereby excluding the other official languages of the European Union.

3.Third plea in law, alleging that the selection of English, French, German and Italian constitutes an arbitrary selection giving rise to discrimination on the ground of language, prohibited by Article 1 of Regulation No 1/58; Article 22 of the Charter; and Article 1d(1) and (6), Article 27 and Article 28(f) of the Staff Regulations.

4.Fourth plea in law, alleging that the fact that the contested notice fails expressly to specify that language 1 must be the language in which candidates have a minimum level C1 (thorough knowledge) gives rise to discrimination on the ground of nationality and discrimination on the ground of the language ‘spoken’, in breach of Article 1 of Regulation No 1/58; Article 22 of the Charter; and Article 1d(1) and (6), Article 27 and Article 28(f) of the Staff Regulations.

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