24.8.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 279/60

(Case T-430/20)

(2020/C 279/75)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

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

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—annul the decision of 23 May 2019 by which the applicant was excluded from competition EPSO/AD/371/19 on the ground of lack of professional experience;

—annul the decision of 19 September 2019 rejecting the request for review of the applicant’s exclusion from competition EPSO/AD/371/19;

—annul the appointing authority’s decision of 31 March 2020 dismissing the administrative appeal brought under Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations;

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, alleging a manifest error of assessment in so far as the applicant’s three years of professional experience in communication were not taken into consideration.

2.Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the competition notice in so far as the selection board drew up criteria for assessing candidates which did not comply with the competition notice, requiring, in particular, specific professional experience in communication.

3.Third plea in law, alleging failure to observe the principle of equality in so far as the selection panel, by assessing the candidates on the basis of criteria different to those set out in the competition notice, failed to ensure that objectivity and impartiality were respected in the assessment of the candidates’ professional experience.

4.Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the obligation to state reasons in so far as EPSO failed to clarify, with reference to facts, why the applicant’s professional experience did not meet the criteria set out in the competition notice.

5.Fifth plea in law, alleging failure to observe the principle of equality of parties in proceedings in so far as EPSO, by not providing a sufficient statement of reasons, failed to allow the applicant sufficiently to develop his allegations from the time at which he lodged his appeal.