EU Competition Law Case Study - 2021

Violation of the rules and principles outlined in the Staff Regulations

Treating all applicants fairly and equally, without bias

Requires actions to be suitable in proportion to the goal pursued

Established rules about allowable languages in exams/procedures

Obvious mistake in evaluating the situation, leading to an incorrect decision

Regulation governing languages in the European Economic Community

Fair and unbiased selection process for all candidates

Restriction of applicants' second language choices to English, French or German

A level of language proficiency demonstrating the ability to understand complex texts, communicate effectively in most situations, and express oneself spontaneously and fluently.

Evaluating an individual's language proficiency by considering the range of languages they can use effectively.

Having a sufficient level of language skill to communicate effectively and understand the necessary information in a specific context.

Newly hired employees who are immediately ready to perform their duties effectively because they possess the required skills and knowledge.

The tasks and responsibilities an individual regularly performs in their job.

The languages used in the various decision-making processes of the Commission, particularly those taking place within the College of Commissioners.

The languages that successful candidates in the competition will need to use when performing duties as case handlers in competition law.

The ability of new recruits to be immediately operational, i.e., able to effectively perform their duties.

The Commission's need to provide sufficient evidence supporting the choice of English, French, or German as the languages used in the competition.

Information provided by the Commission about the languages used by DG Competition staff.

The Human Resource Management information system used by the Commission to collect data on staff languages.

The unique features and requirements of the specific job positions being filled through the competition.

The Commission's obligation to ensure that the selection process for new recruits meets the actual needs of the service they will be working in.

The Commission's decision to limit language choices in the competition was unjustified because the evidence presented didn't prove the need and proportionality of the restriction.

The applicant claims illegality of the competition notice due to the unjustified language limitation. This challenge is based on the Court of Justice's case law.

The applicant believes the flawed language regime might have led to an incorrect evaluation of all candidates, including those on the reserve list. She wants a reassessment to ensure fairness.

It would require a review of the evaluation of all candidates on the list, potentially leading to a re-assessment and a change in the ranking of candidates.

The applicant argues that the language regime might have biased the evaluation of all candidates, leading to an incorrect ranking. She wants the list annulled so that all candidates can be re-evaluated.

The applicant believes the flawed language regime led to an incorrect evaluation of all candidates. Annulling the reserve list would allow for reevaluation, addressing the issue raised by the applicant against the competition decision.

The applicant seeks a judgment that would declare the competition notice inapplicable, leading to a reevaluation of all candidates based on a fair language regime.

The applicant argues that the competition decision violates the principles of equality and non-discrimination by unfairly limiting language choices, undermining the selection process.

The competition was called EPSO/AD/293/14, organised by EPSO, for recruitment within the Commission.

Ms. Calhau Correia de Paiva was excluded from the competition's reserve list, prompting her to appeal the decision.

The General Court ruled that Ms. Calhau Correia de Paiva's exclusion was unjustified, annulling the selection board's decision, and ordering the Commission to pay two-thirds of her costs.

The Court found that the selection board's decision lacked proper justification for restricting applicants' language options to English, French, or German, leading to Ms. Calhau Correia de Paiva's exclusion.

While dismissing the action for the most part, the General Court annulled the contested board decision, recognizing the exclusion as unjustified.

A competition process where applicants must undergo rigorous, multi-stage selection procedures to be chosen, demanding significant effort from participants.

Cancellation of a list of successful candidates, primarily when procedural errors or irregularities occur.

Evaluating the fairness and validity of a competition's results based on concerns about procedural errors or unfairness.

The fair and reasonable beliefs of successful candidates that their selection is valid and they will be offered the position.

Ensuring that any corrective measures taken are appropriate and proportional to the seriousness of the irregularity or error.

The amount of time that has passed since a specific event, such as the publication of a competition result list.

Determining who is responsible for paying the legal fees and expenses associated with a legal case.

Legal parties who have both won and lost certain aspects of a case, necessitating a partial cost allocation.