WM v Commission (Civil service - Recruitment - Judgment) [2021] EUECJ T-411/18 (27 October 2021)

WM v Commission (Civil service - Recruitment - Judgment) [2021] EUECJ T-411/18 (27 October 2021)

EPSO and the Appointing Authority did not act arbitrarily or manifestly inadequately in granting 25% extra time, as this was based on an individual assessment, supporting documents, and expert advice; no breach of the principle of non-discrimination or equal treatment occurred.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2021] EUECJ T-411/18
Parties
Applicant: WM; Respondent: European Commission
Jurisdiction
European Union
Judgment Date
27 October 2021
Procedural Posture
Action for Annulment and Damages / Final Judgment
Outcome
action dismissed
Legal Topics
Reasonable Accommodation, Disability Discrimination, Equal Treatment, Public Sector Recruitment, Staff Regulations, Directive 2000/78/ec
EU Administrative Law Employment Discrimination Reasonable Accommodation Disability Discrimination Equal Treatment Public Sector Recruitment Staff Regulations Directive 2000/78/ec

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 3 Authorities cited 19 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

WM

Applicant

European Commission

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Action for Annulment and Damages / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether EPSO and the Appointing Authority failed to provide reasonable accommodation by granting only 25% extra time instead of the requested 75% for a candidate with dyspraxia and ADHD
  2. 2 Whether the principle of non-discrimination and equal treatment under Article 1d of the Staff Regulations and Article 5 of Directive 2000/78/EC was infringed

Ratio Decidendi

EPSO and the Appointing Authority did not act arbitrarily or manifestly inadequately in granting 25% extra time, as this was based on an individual assessment, supporting documents, and expert advice; no breach of the principle of non-discrimination or equal treatment occurred.

Court Disposition

action dismissed

Orders

  • Each party to bear its own costs