Communication: judgment No. 0247 of 2020

IDENTIFIER
62020TA0247
LANGUAGE
English
COURT
General Court
AG OPINION
NO
REFERENCES MADE
6
REFERENCED
1
DOCUMENT TYPE
Communication: judgment

Judgment



14.2.2022   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 73/36


Judgment of the General Court of 8 December 2021 — JP v Commission

(Case T-247/20) (1)

(Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Documents relating to Open Competition EPSO/AD/363/18 for the recruitment of administrators at grade AD 7 in the field of taxation - Restriction of the scope of the application for access - Refusal to grant access - Article 4(3) of Regulation No 1049/2001 - Exception relating to the protection of the decision-making process - Article 6 of Annex III to the Staff Regulations - Secrecy of the selection board’s proceedings - Partial access - Non-contractual liability)

(2022/C 73/42)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: JP (represented by: S. Rodrigues and A. Champetier, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: C. Ehrbar and D. Milanowska, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application pursuant to Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of Commission Decision C(2020) 1195 final of 24 February 2020 concerning a confirmatory application for access to documents under Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43), as well as a claim for compensation pursuant to Article 268 TFEU for the non-material damage allegedly suffered by the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.

Annuls Commission Decision C(2020) 1195 final of 24 February 2020 concerning a confirmatory application for access to documents under Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 in so far as it refused to grant JP access to the questions set out in the sections of the evaluation by the assessors of her answers during the field-related interview (Document No 1) headed ‘Anchor’ and ‘Possible questions’ and refused to grant access to the questions set out in the sections of the evaluation by the assessors of her answers during the general competency-based interview (Document No 2) headed ‘Situation 1’, ‘Situation 2’ and ‘Situation 3’ in the context of Competition EPSO/AD/363/18;

2.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

3.

Orders each party to bear its own costs.


(1)  OJ C 222, 6.7.2020.



Citations

Sign up for a free moonlit.ai™ account to access all citing documents.