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-229/24: Action brought on 2 May 2024 – Sánchez v Commission

ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62024TN0229

62024TN0229

May 2, 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

C series

C/2024/4335

15.7.2024

(Case T-229/24)

(C/2024/4335)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Isabel Sánchez (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S. Rodrigues and A. Champetier, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

annul the decision of the Selection Board of 19 December 2022 not to include the applicant’s name on the reserve list of successful candidates of the open competition EPSO/AD/391/21-1 – Experts in technical Support to Members States’ Structural Reforms (AD7);

annul, in as far as necessary, the defendant’s decision, dated 24 January 2024, rejecting the applicant’s complaint filed on 14 August 2023, under Article 90(2) of the EU Staff Regulations, against the above-mentioned decision;

order the defendant to compensate the applicant for the material and moral damages suffered, resulting from the loss of opportunity to be put on the reserve list and to be recruited, as well as the moral damage suffered and estimated at EUR 5 000;

order the defendant to reimburse the applicant for all the costs incurred by her lawyers for the present appeal.

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 that the procedure of marking was not published in the notice of competition.

2.Second plea in law, alleging the separation of functions corresponding to the Selection Board (‘SB’) and EPSO was not respected.

3.Third plea in law, alleging that the SB did not draw up a list with all the candidates who meet the requirements of the notice of competition.

4.Fourth plea in law, alleging that the marking method was neither transparent, nor decided by the SB, leading to a breach of the duty to state reasons and of the applicant’s rights of defence and of the principle of good administration (refusal of access to her file).

5.Fifth plea in law, alleging that the principle of equal treatment has been breached during the field-related interview.

ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/4335/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