28.1.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 35/24

(Case T-684/18)

(2019/C 35/30)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: ZV (represented by: J.-N. Louis, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—annul the decisions of the Commission, notified by letter of 12 February 2018, rejecting the applicant’s candidacy for the post of deputy mediator and filling the position by appointing another candidate;

—order the Commission to pay the costs.

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 misuse of powers and of procedure. In this regard, the applicant claims that the vacancy notice COM/2017/1739 did not make it possible to ensure that the candidate chosen genuinely possessed the qualifications and experience necessary for that vacant position. Moreover, the applicant submits that the candidate whose application was selected did not have all the required qualifications, in particular experience in mediation and in-depth legal knowledge of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union.

2.Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Commission Decision C(2002/601) of 4 March 2002 on the reinforced Mediation Service, in that Article 6(3) provides that the President of the Commission is to appoint the deputy mediators on a proposal by the Mediator, but does not provide for a pre-selection procedure or for the drawing-up of a list of selected candidates. However, in the present case, the consultative committee for appointments organised a pre-selection procedure and submitted to the Mediator the three applications which it had selected. According to the applicant, it follows that the Mediator did not examine all the applications and therefore infringed the provision referred to above when he proposed that the President of the Commission appoint the selected candidate.

3.Third plea in law, alleging a breach of the duty to state reasons vitiating the contested decisions.

4.Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the vacancy notice COM/2017/1739 and manifest error of assessment. In that regard, the applicant submits that, unlike her, the selected candidate does not meet the requirements set out in the notice referred to above in order to fill the position at issue, that is, inter alia, good knowledge of the Staff Regulations and of the rules applicable to officials and other members of staff, together with experience in conflict resolution.