8.5.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 144/51

(Case T-137/17)

(2017/C 144/70)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Danuta Kakol (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: R. Duta, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

—Annul the decisions of the selection board of 25 November 2016 and 2 May 2016 according to which the applicant’s candidature, pre-qualified for competition EPSO/AD/177/10-AUDIT2013-Administrators-D5, was rejected;

—Order the defendant to make payment of the amount of EUR 5 000, otherwise for any other amount, even greater, to be set by the Court in compensation for the vexatious manner in which the applicant’s candidature was handled;

—Order all duties ascribed by law to be undertaken;

—Order the defendant to pay all the costs and fees of the case.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The present action is brought in essence against the decisions of 25 November 2016 and [2] May 2016 according to which the applicant’s candidature for the EPSO/AD/177/10-AUDIT2013-Administrators-D5 competition, was rejected on the ground that she did not satisfy the conditions for admissions as regards the education requirements.

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

1.First plea in law, alleging a lack of delegation by the selection board as regards the decision of 2 May 2016.

—The applicant submits in that regard that a number of indications show that it is not possible that the decision of 2 May 2016 was taken by the selection board.

2.Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of legitimate expectations, legal certainty and estoppel.

—The applicant asserts that the administration gave precise assurances as regards the competition for which she had previously applied, namely competition EPSO/AD/172/09, that competition having the same admission criteria as competition EPSO? AD/177/10. In competition EPSO/AD/172/09 the selection board concluded that the applicant meets the conditions required as regards experience/professional training.

3.Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination.

4.Fourth plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment in the present case.

—The applicant asserts in that regard that it is clear from the diplomas produced that she has a level of university education equal to a full cycle of at least three years, attested by a diploma relevant to the nature of the competition duties.

5.Fifth plea in law, alleging an abuse of power and lack of proportionality.

—The applicant asserts in that regard that it is clear that the applicant’s candidature was not rejected on the basis of considerations connected with her qualification and diplomas, but on a question of general foreign policy for the purposes covered by the recruitment.