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-761/17: Action brought on 17 November 2017 — UR v Commission

ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62017TN0761

62017TN0761

November 17, 2017
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

29.1.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 32/39

(Case T-761/17)

(2018/C 032/53)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: UR (represented by: S. Orlandi and T. Martin, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

annul the decision of the selection board of 11 August 2017, taken following a review, not to include his name on the reserve list for Competition EPSO/AD/322/16;

in any event, order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law.

1.First plea in law, alleging that the selection board made a manifest error of assessment in considering that the applicant’s diploma did not satisfy one of the conditions for admission to the competition.

2.Second plea in law, alleging, in the alternative, that the competition notice is unlawful, based on the first paragraph of Article 27 of the Staff Regulations of Officials [of the European Union]. In particular, the applicant argues that the condition for admission at issue is not connected with the requirements of the posts to be filled as described in the competition notice and is, therefore, contrary to the interests of the service.

3.Third plea in law, alleging, in the further alternative, that the contested decision lacks a statement of reasons, inasmuch as the criteria established by the selection board for assessing the relevance of the applicant’s diploma in the light of the condition for admission at issue have not been disclosed, which the applicant argues has prevented him from being able to prepare an adequate defence.

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