Official Journal of the European Union

C 38/44

(Case T-854/16)

(2017/C 038/58)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Joao Miguel Barata (Evere, Belgium) (represented by: G. Pandey, D. Rovetta, lawyers, and J. Grayston, solicitor)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—as a preliminary matter, where appropriate, declare Article 90 of the Staff Regulations invalid and inapplicable in the present proceedings under Article 277 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union;

—annul the collectively contested decision, namely the decision of the Directorate for Human Resources Development of 29 January 2016, not to insert the applicant’s name among the list of the selected candidates and the decision of 25 August 2016 rejecting the Article 90 Staff Regulations appeal;

—annul the internal notice of competition 2015/023 circulated among the staff on 18 September 2015;

—annul in its entirety the draft list of officials selected to take part in the aforesaid training program;

—order the defendant to bear the applicant’s costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on five pleas in law concerning infringement of the Staff Regulations, essential procedural requirements, as well infringement of the EU Treaties and of general principles of EU Law:

1.First plea in law, alleging manifest error of assessment.

2.Second plea in law, alleging breach of the effective judicial protection principle, breach of Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and plea of illegality and inapplicability under Article 277 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union related to the illegality and inapplicability of Article 90 of the Staff Regulations.

3.Third plea in law, alleging breach of the duty of sound and good administration.

4.Fourth plea in law, alleging breach of the proportionality principle and discrimination.

5.Fifth plea in law, alleging breach of the applicant’s legitimate expectations and of the principle of equality.