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 C-233/17 P: Appeal brought on 4 May 2017 by GX against the order of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 3 March 2017 in Case T-556/16: GX v European Commission

ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62017CN0233

62017CN0233

May 4, 2017
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

10.7.2017

Official Journal of the European Union

C 221/12

(Case C-233/17 P)

(2017/C 221/16)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: GX (represented by: G.-M. Enache, avocat)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

set aside the judgment under appeal and, consequently, annul the contested decision of the appointing authority;

pay compensation in respect of the material and non-material harm suffered on account of that decision;

order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By his appeal, the appellant requests the Court to set aside the order of the General Court of 3 March 2017 in Case T-556/16, GX v Commission, by which his action for annulment of the decision of the selection board of open competition EPSO/AD/248/13 not to include his name on the reserve list of successful candidates in that competition, was dismissed.

In support of the appeal, the applicant relies on two pleas in law:

1.The illegality of the notice of competition, of the corrigendum, and of the Assessment Centre fundamental principles

The appellant considers that the competition notice is unlawful insofar as it does not provide an objective justification either as regards the limitation of the choice of second language (German, English or French) in the light of the interest of the service or as regards the proportionality of that limitation with regard to the real needs of the service.

Secondly, the appellant claims the illegality, lack of validity and of scientific foundation of the Assessment Centre fundamental principles governing EPSO open competitions as there is no support, evidence, or verification of the fundamental practices used at EPSO based on the following principles: (i) ‘past behavior is the best predictor of future performance’, (ii) ‘assessment centers, simulating real-life working situations, are the best predictor of real-life performance’.

Thirdly, the appellant claims the illegality of a corrigendum published in competition EPSO/AD/248/13.

2.Procedural irregularities at the Assessment Centre.

The appellant raises a certain number of alleged procedural irregularities at the assessment center in competition EPSO/AD/248/13.

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