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 T-27/24: Action brought on 15 January 2024 — UT v Commission

ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62024TN0027

62024TN0027

January 15, 2024
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

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

Series C

C/2024/1876

11.3.2024

(Case T-27/24)

(C/2024/1876)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: UT (represented by: N. de Montigny, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

annul the decision of 6 April 2023;

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action brought against the review decision of 6 April 2023 of the selection board in Competition EPSO/AD/398/22-4 confirming the decision not to include his name on the list of persons invited to the assessment centre, the applicant relies on four pleas in law.

1.First plea in law, alleging a lack of legal certainty of the notice of competition stemming from its vague wording;

2.Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the notice of competition by the administration and a failure to assess the various criteria and competencies required by that notice;

3.Third plea in law, alleging a lack of reasoning for the scores obtained by the applicant, with the result that he is unable to understand the scores that he obtained for each reply or to verify their validity, and a lack of a personal and individual decision rejecting his request for review;

4.Fourth plea in law, alleging a manifest error in the assessment of the applicant’s replies, in that there are errors and inconsistencies between the questions asked and the scores that he obtained, as well as a manifest error in the assessment of his replies to questions 4 and 8 and the existence of possible technical errors that might explain that error.

ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/1876/oj

ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)

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