Official Journal of the European Union

C series

—

C/2025/243

(Case C-622/24 P)

(C/2025/243)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Appellant: VT (represented by: M. Velardo, avvocata)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court of Justice should:

—set aside the judgment of the General Court of 10 July 2024 given in case T-216/23, VT v Commission;

—rule on the appeal at first and second instance;

—order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings at first and second instance.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

In support of his appeal, the appellant relies, in essence, on two grounds of appeal.

By the first ground of appeal, the appellant claims that the General Court erred in law by failing to find a breach of the principle of equal treatment between candidates to a competition.

The appellant claims that the General Court incorrectly held that the option of sitting the tests again – at the candidates’ discretion – and irrespective of whether the technical problem was actually encountered, did not constitute a breach of the abovementioned principle and that resitting the written part, on different dates and only by certain candidates, did not alter the objective conditions for assessing those candidates.

The General Court held, in essence, that candidates who had sat the same written tests one, two or even three times, could be treated in the same way irrespective of any verification of the technical difficulties encountered during the first test.

The appellant submits that, in the light of the fact that the measures adopted by the examination board and held to be valid by the General Court had had a considerable and avoidable impact on the running of the tests, the principle of proportionality was also breached.

By the second ground of appeal, the appellant criticises the General Court for erring in law in the application of the rules concerning the interpretation of the competition notice.

The appellant claims that the General Court misinterpreted the assessment criteria for the different categories of posts (AD 7 and AD 9), thereby breaching the requirements of the competition notice, which clearly stated that team-management skills should be assessed only in relation to those candidates who were competing for grade AD 9 posts, while all candidates, both those competing for posts at grade AD 7 and at grade AD 9, should have been assessed for leadership.

The General Court thus erred in law in the interpretation of the rules governing competition notices which require the wording of the notice to be strictly adhered to, with a view also to protecting candidates’ legitimate expectations.

ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/243/oj

ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)

—

* * *