- 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 C-31/25 P: Appeal brought on 18 January 2025 by Yavor Markov against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 13 November 2024 in Case T-1050/23, Markov v Commission
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62025CN0031
62025CN0031
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
C series
—
C/2025/2061
14.4.2025
(Case C-31/25 P)
(C/2025/2061)
Language of the case: English
Parties
Appellant: Yavor Markov (represented by: I. Stoynev, advokat)
Other party to the proceedings: European Commission
Form of order sought
The appellant claims that the Court should:
—set aside the judgment under appeal in whole and grant the form of order sought at the first instance; namely:
—annul the contested decisions;
—order the Commission to pay damages as compensation for the harm suffered;
—order the Commission to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
First plea in law, alleging that EPSO could not lawfully change the structure and the scope of the oral presentation test.
—The General Court incorrectly found that the 2015 General rules governing open competitions (<span class="oj-super oj-note-tag">1</span>) and the Code of Good Administrative Behaviour (<span class="oj-super oj-note-tag">2</span>) do not apply to the case.
—It did not take into consideration essential evidence furnished by the Appellant such as the preparatory materials sent to him by EPSO, which also contained information in regards to the description and duration of the oral presentation test, which were different from the actual test’s contents and duration.
Second plea in law, alleging that EPSO unlawfully provided the applicant with inaccurate, unclear, ambiguous, inconsistent and contradictory information.
—The General Court wrongly found that the EPSO official website has no legal force and that it could not have given rise to the Appellant’s legitimate expectations.
—It did not take into consideration essential evidence furnished by the Appellant such as the preparatory materials sent to him by EPSO, which also contained information in regards to the description and duration of the oral presentation test, which were different than the actual test’s contents and duration.
—It did not give the necessary consideration to the undisputed fact that there were discrepancies in the information provided by EPSO in regards to the description and duration of the oral presentation test, on one hand, and the actual test, on the other hand.
—
(1) OJ 2015, C 70A, p. 1.
(2) Annex to Rules of Procedure of the Commission (OJ 2000, L 308, p. 26).
—
ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/2061/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
—