Judgments of the Court of Justice in Cases C-623/20 P, C-635/20 P Commission v Italy
Date of article: 16/02/2023
Daily News of: 17/02/2023
Country: EUROPE
Author: Court of Justice of the European Union
Article language: en
Link: https://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2023-02/cp230028en.pdf
Language: bg es de en fr hr it pl pt
PRESS RELEASE No 28/23
The Court of Justice confirms the unlawfulness of two EPSO notices of competition restricting the choice of the second language to English, French or German It was not demonstrated that that restriction was justified by the interests of the service in recruiting staff who are immediately operational The Commission brought two appeals before the Court of Justice seeking that it set aside the judgments delivered by the General Court on 9 September 2020 . 1 By those judgments the General Court annulled two EPSO notices of open competition for: 1. the constitution of reserve lists of administrators in the field of audit 2. the constitution of reserve lists of administrators entrusted with the duties of investigators and team leaders in the fields of EU expenditure, anti-corruption, customs and trade, tobacco and counterfeit goods The EPSO notices specified that candidates must satisfy specific language conditions: a minimum level of C1 in one of the 24 official EU languages (language 1), and a minimum level of B2 in English, French or German (language 2), described as being the main working languages of the EU institutions. In their actions, Italy and Spain challenged the legality of two aspects of the language regime established by the notices of competition limiting to English, French and German the choice, first, of the second language of the competition and second, of the language of communication between candidates and EPSO . 2 In upholding the complaints of Italy and Spain, the General Court noted that the restriction of the choice of second language to English, French and German constitutes, in essence, a difference in treatment based on language. It also held that that difference in treatment was not objectively justified by the main ground put forward in the notices of competition, 3 namely the need for administrators recruited to be immediately operational.
(...)