11.4.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 127/42

(Case T-14/23)

(2023/C 127/54)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: UI (represented by: S. Pappas, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

—annul the decision of the Selection Board of 2 May 2022 (‘first contested decision’) rejecting the request for review of its decision to exclude the applicant from the next stage of open competition EPSO/AST-SC/10/20 — Secretaries (SC 1/SC 2) (‘the competition’); the implied rejection decision of the Appointing Authority of 7 October 2022 regarding the complaint lodged by the applicant on 7 June 2022 under Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union (‘second contested decision’); and the explicit decision ARES (2022)s. 8274712 of the Appointing Authority of 27 October 2022 rejecting the above-mentioned complaint (‘third contested decision’);

—order the defendant to bear its costs as well as the applicant’s costs for the current proceedings.

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, as regards the first and second contested decisions, an infringement of the competition notice EPSO/AST-SC/10/20 — Secretaries (SC 1/SC 2) (‘the competition notice’) in that the Selection Board unlawfully defined and applied new eligibility criteria, which are not envisaged in the competition notice.

2.Second plea in law, alleging, as regards the first and second contested decisions, a manifest error in the application of the rules of the competition notice. The applicant submits that, as the eligibility criteria adopted by the Selection Board infringe the competition notice, they should be set aside. The only lawful and applicable rule of eligibility of candidates in the present competition is the one set in the competition notice. The Selection Board committed a manifest error in the application of that rule.

3.Third plea in law, alleging, as regards the first and second contested decisions, a lack of sufficient and adequate reasoning. The applicant submits that, in its decision of 7 March 2022, the Selection Board stated its conclusion that the applicant was not eligible for qualification to the next phase of the competition, as it did not have 7 years’ professional experience directly related to the nature of the duties. The Selection Board reached that conclusion solely on the basis of the new criteria. The decision provided only a summary of reasons included in the decision as a hyperlink. In its reply of 2 May 2022 to the request for review, the Selection Board further confirmed that decision by merely repeating the reasoning of the initial decision of 7 March 2022. No precise explanation allowing the applicant to understand the reason for the Selection Board’s decision was provided.

4.Fourth plea in law, alleging, in the alternative and as regards the third contested decision, an infringement of the competition notice rule on the eligibility of the candidates. The applicant submits that the third contested decision is also unlawful since it confirms the application of criteria that infringe the notice of competition.

5.Fifth plea in law, alleging, in the alternative and as regards the third contested decision, a manifest error in the application of the new criteria established by the Selection Board. The applicant submits that even if it were to be accepted that the Selection Board correctly defined new eligibility criteria (quod non), it should still be noted that the Selection Board committed a manifest error of assessment in their application.