- Query in any language with multilingual search
- Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
- See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Similar Documents
Explore similar documents to your case.We Found Similar Cases for You
Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 18 June 2009.#David Spee v European Police Office (Europol).#Case F-43/08.
ECLI:EU:F:2009:70
62008FJ0043
With us you find everything. Try it now!
I imagine what I want to write in my case, I write it in the search engine and I get exactly what I wanted. Thank you!
Valentina R., lawyer
(Civil service – Europol staff – Vacant post – Selection procedure)
Application: brought under Article 40(3) of the Convention based on Article K.3 of the Treaty on European Union, on the establishment of a European Police Office (Europol Convention), and Article 93(1) of the Staff Regulations applicable to Europol employees, in which Mr Spee seeks annulment of the decision of the Director of Europol of 7 January 2008 rejecting his complaint and of the underlying decisions of 20 June 2007 and 6 July 2007 concerning the re-opening of a selection procedure to fill a First Officer’s post declared vacant on 25 July 2006.
Held: The action is dismissed. The applicant is ordered to pay all the costs.
Summary
Officials – Europol staff – Recruitment – Candidate chosen by the selection committee not satisfying the criteria set out in the notice of vacancy
Although the Director of the European Police Office (Europol) does not have the power, under the principle of the independence of selection boards in competitions, to annul or amend a decision of a selection board, he is, however, required to eliminate any candidate who does not satisfy the criteria set out in the notice of vacancy, since the administration is bound by each of the criteria it has laid down in that notice. The Director cannot therefore be bound by decisions of the selection board the unlawfulness of which would be liable as a consequence to vitiate his own decisions. Consequently, the Director may decide, having been apprised that a selected candidate did not satisfy the requirements in a notice of vacancy, to initiate a fresh selection procedure.
(see paras 45, 46, 48)
See:
142/85 Schwiering v Court of Auditors [1986] ECR 3177, paras 19 to 21; 322/85 and 323/85 Hoyer and Neumann v Court of Auditors [1986] ECR 3215, paras 12 to 14; C-35/92 P Parliament v Frederiksen [1993] ECR I‑991, paras 15 and 16
T-153/95 Kaps v Court of Justice [1996] ECR-SC I‑A‑233 and II‑663, para. 78; T-143/98 Cendrowicz v Commission [1999] ECR‑SC I‑A‑273 and II‑1341, para. 39; T-45/04 Tzirani v Commission [2006] ECR-SC I‑A‑2‑145 and II‑A‑2‑681, para. 46