24.10.2016   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 392/26


Judgment of the General Court of 15 September 2016 — Italy v Commission

(Cases T-353/14 and T-17/15) (1)

((Language regime - Notice of open competition for the recruitment of administrators - Choice of second language from three languages - Regulation No 1 - Article 1d(1), Article 27 and Article 28(f) of the Staff Regulations - Principle of non-discrimination - Proportionality))

(2016/C 392/31)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Italian Republic (represented by: G. Palmieri, acting as Agent, and by P. Gentili, avvocato dello Stato)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: initially J. Currall and G. Gattinara (Cases T-353/14 and T-17/15) and F. Simonetti (Case T-17/15), then G. Gattinara and F. Simonetti, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the applicant: Republic of Lithuania (represented by: D. Kriaučiūnas and V. Čepaitė, acting as Agents)

Re:

In Case T-353/14, application based on Article 263 TFEU and asking for annulment of the notice of open competition EPSO/AD/276/14, to constitute a reserve list for administrators (OJ 2014 C 74 A, p. 4), and, in Case T-17/15, application based on Article 263 TFEU and asking for annulment of the notice of open competition EPSO/AD/294/14 to constitute a reserve list of administrators in the field of data protection for the European Data Protection Supervisor (OJ 2014 C 391 A, p. 1.)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1)

Joins Cases T-353/14 and T-17/15 for the purposes of the judgment;

2)

Annuls the notice of open competition EPSO/AD/276/14, to constitute a reserve list for administrators and the notice of open competition EPSO/AD/294/14 to constitute a reserve list of administrators in the field of data protection for the European Data Protection Supervisor;

3)

Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Italian Republic;

4)

Orders the Republic of Lithuania to bear its own costs relating to its intervention in Case T-17/15.


(1)  OJ C 212, 7.7.2014.