7.12.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 423/39

(Case T-631/20)

(2020/C 423/57)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: MZ (represented by: M. Velardo, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—annul the decision of 17 July 2019 to exclude the applicant from the reserve list of Competition EPSO/AD/363/18 (AD7) — 2, Administrators in the field of Taxation;

—annul the decision of 10 December 2019 confirming the decision to exclude the applicant from the reserve list of Competition EPSO/AD/363/18 (AD7) — 2, Administrators in the field of Taxation;

—annul the decision of the appointing authority of 8 July 2020 communicated by email on the same day to the applicant;

—order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1.First plea in law, (i) alleging infringement of the legal provisions governing the use of languages by the EU institutions, (ii) raising the prohibition of language discrimination, and (iii) alleging infringement of the principle of proportionality, Article 27 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union, the principle of equal treatment of candidates, and Article 22 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights.

2.Second plea in law, alleging (i) infringement of the principle of equality of candidates and lack of objectivity of the assessments due to the lack of stability of the selection board, (ii) infringement of Article 27 of the Staff Regulations, and (iii) that the decision is manifestly illogical and inconsistent and the selection board made a manifest error of assessment.

3.Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the competition notice and resulting infringement of Article 27 of the Staff Regulations, in so far as the selection board failed to comply with the requirements of the notice regarding the general assessment and the assessment of the required competencies for each field.

4.Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 5 of Annex III to the Staff Regulations and manifest error of assessment.

5.Fifth plea in law, alleging failure by the selection board to state reasons in the context of a review and infringement of the right to an effective remedy, the principle of sound administration and the rights of the defence, in so far as the selection board adopted a standardised statement of reasons from which, it is claimed, it is not apparent whether the applicant’s competencies were assessed or what criteria were in fact adopted in that regard.