- 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-736/20: Action brought on 11 December 2020 — OP v Commission
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62020TN0736
62020TN0736
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
8.3.2021
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
C 79/31
(Case T-736/20)
(2021/C 79/41)
Language of the case: English
Parties
Applicant: OP (represented by: S. Pappas, lawyer)
Defendant: European Commission
Form of order sought
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—annul i) the decision of the Selection Board of 5 February 2020, by which the applicant was not placed on the reserve list of Open Competition EPSO/AST/147/19 and ii) the decision of the Appointing Authority of 3 September 2020, by which the complaint of the applicant against the decision of the Selection Board of 5 February 2020 was rejected, to the extent it contains additional reasoning;
—order the defendant to bear its costs as well as the applicant’s costs for the current proceedings.
Pleas in law and main arguments
In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law.
1.First plea in law, alleging infringement of the principles of equal treatment, transparency, objectivity and of Article 1d(5) of the Staff Regulations.
2.Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the right to good administration.
3.Third plea in law, alleging insufficient and inadequate reasoning.
4.Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 27 of the Staff Regulations.