Judgment of the General Court Fourth Chamber, 7 September 2022, OQ v Commission, T-713/20
| Date | 07 September 2022 |
| Year | 2022 |
62
Secondly, the Court seeks to determine whether, because it did not review the legality of the CCMs in
ACER’s initial decision in the light of the requirements governing the adoption of CCMs laid down in
Articles 14 to 16 of Regulation 2019/943, the Board of Appeal erred in law in its determination of the
applicable law.
allocation on the markets in day-ahead and intraday cross-border exchanges in electricity and
therefore dictate the requirements to be taken into consideration when day-ahead and intraday
CCMs are adopted. It also calls to mind that a new legal rule, in principle, applies from the entry into
force of the act introducing it and, while it does not apply to legal situations that have arisen and
become definitive under the old law, it does apply to their future effects and to new legal situations.
At the time the initial decision was adopted, namely 21 February 2019, Articles 14 to 16 of Regulation
2019/943 had not yet entered into force or become applicable, whereas they had, with certain limits
with regard to Article 16, at the time the Board of Appeal adopted its decision, namely 11 July 2019.
Accordingly, where, as in the present case, an appeal is lodged before the Board of Appeal against a
decision of ACER concerning day-ahead or intraday CCMs, it is the decision of the Board of Appeal
confirming that decision that definitively establishes ACER’s position on that methodology, following a
full examination by the Board of Appeal of the situation at issue, in fact and in law, in the light of the
law applicable at the time it makes its decision. In consequence, since Articles 14 to 16 of Regulation
2019/943 were already applicable by that date, the Board of Appeal was obliged to determine
whether the CCMs approved by ACER in the initial decision complied with the new rules emanating
from those articles.
It follows that, by not reviewing the legality of the day-ahead and intraday CCMs of the Core CCR in
the light of the requirements of Articles 14 to 16 of Regulation 2019/943, the Board of Appeal erred in
law in its determination of the law applicable at the time of final adoption of those CCMs.
The Board of Appeal’s decision is therefore annulled.
7. EUROPEAN CIVIL SERVICE: CONDITIONS FOR ADMISSION TO
COMPETITIONS
Judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber), 7 September 2022, OQ v Commission,
T-713/20
Civil service – Recruitment – Notice of open competition EPSO/AD/378/20 (AD 7) – Croatian-language
lawyer-linguists at the Court of Justice of the European Union – Decision of the selection board not to
admit the applicant to the next stage of the competition – Conditions for admission – Condition relating to
a level of education corresponding to completed university studies attested by a diploma in Croatian law –
Possession of a French diploma in law – Freedom of movement for workers – Action for annulment
In April 2020, the applicant, OQ, a Croatian national, applied for open competition EPSO/AD/378/20.
The aim of that competition was to compile a reserve list with a view to the recruitment of Croatian-
language lawyer-linguists within the Court of Justice of the European Union.
The competition notice stated, inter alia, that no professional experience was required and laid down
as a condition of admission to the competition a level of education corresponding to completed
university studies attested by one of the qualifications in Croatian law listed. After examining the
information provided by the applicant in his application form, the selection board informed him of its
decision not to admit him to the next stage of the competition on the ground that he did not satisfy
that condition. According to the information provided, the applicant held a diploma in French law of
an equivalent level and had professional experience, both as regards the practice of Croatian law and
in the field of translation into Croatian, which was in part acquired outside Croatia.
By decision of 12 October 2020 (‘the contested decision’), on the ground that a selection board is
bound by the competition notice which determines the competencies required for the posts to be
To continue reading
Request your trial