MV v Commission (Civil service - Competition eligibility requirements - Judgment) [2022] EUECJ T-624/20 (19 October 2022)

MV v Commission (Civil service - Competition eligibility requirements - Judgment) [2022] EUECJ T-624/20 (19 October 2022)

The applicant failed to demonstrate that the selection board or EPSO infringed the obligation to state reasons or committed a manifest error of assessment. The board acted within its discretion and followed the competition notice, which clearly distinguished between eligibility and Talent Screener stages. The...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2022] EUECJ T-624/20
Parties
Applicant: MV; Respondent: European Commission; Respondent: Council of the European Union
Jurisdiction
European Union
Judgment Date
19 October 2022
Procedural Posture
Action for Annulment and Damages Under Article 270 TFEU / Judgment on Merits
Outcome
Action dismissed
Legal Topics
Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union, Open Competition Procedures, Judicial Review, Professional Experience Requirements, Obligation to State Reasons, Discrimination, Damages
European Union Law Administrative Law Employment Law Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union Open Competition Procedures Judicial Review Professional Experience Requirements Obligation to State Reasons +2 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 6 Authorities cited 24 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

MV

Applicant

European Commission

Respondent

Council of the European Union

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Action for Annulment and Damages Under Article 270 TFEU / Judgment on Merits

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the selection board and EPSO infringed the obligation to state reasons in rejecting the applicant's candidacy
  2. 2 Whether the selection board committed a manifest error of assessment regarding the applicant's professional experience
  3. 3 Whether the notice of competition and its annexes were unlawful or discriminatory

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant failed to demonstrate that the selection board or EPSO infringed the obligation to state reasons or committed a manifest error of assessment. The board acted within its discretion and followed the competition notice, which clearly distinguished between eligibility and Talent Screener stages. The applicant did not provide sufficient evidence of relevant professional experience in the required section of the application. Claims regarding the lawfulness of the notice of competition, Talent Screener, and related rules were inadmissible due to lack of close connection with the contested decision. The claim for damages was rejected as it was closely linked to the unsuccessful...

Court Disposition

Action dismissed

Orders

  • Application for annulment of the contested decision is dismissed
  • Application for annulment of the notice of competition and draft list is dismissed as inadmissible