(Officials – Recruitment – Article 29 of the Staff Regulations – Vacancy notice – Rejection of application – Out of time)

Full text in French II - 0000

Application: for annulment, first, of the Council decision of 11 April 2002 rejecting the applicant’s candidature for the post of Director General in the External Economic Relations, Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) Directorate General in the Secretariat General of that institution and of the decision of 10 July 2002 expressly rejecting his complaint, and, second, of the decision appointing the Director General of the External Economic Relations, Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) Directorate General in the Secretariat General of the Council.

Held: The application is dismissed. The parties are ordered to bear their own costs.

Summary

(Staff Regulations, Arts 90 and 91)

(Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 44(1)(c))

(Staff Regulations, Art. 2, first para.)

(Art. 241 EC; Staff Regulations, Art. 91)

5. Community law – Principles – Equal treatment – Discrimination

6. Officials – Recruitment – Procedures – Application of Article 29(2) of the Staff Regulations – Purpose – Widening of the appointing authority’s field of choice – Consequence – Possibility of applying reserved for persons unable to apply through the parallel procedure provided for in Article 29(1) of the Staff Regulations

(Staff Regulations, Art. 29)

7. Officials – Actions – Pleas in law – Misuse of powers – Definition

(see para. 19)

See: 293/87 Vainker v Parliament [1989] ECR 23, para. 8; T-302/01 Birkhoff v Commission [2003] ECR-SC I-A-245 and II-1185, para. 24

(see para. 21)

See: T-231/99 Joynson v Commission [2002] ECR II-2085, para. 154, and the case-law cited

An institution cannot, therefore, extend or change the time-limit for the submission of transfer applications laid down in a vacancy notice from another institution.

(see para. 32)

See: T-6/92 and T-52/92 Reinarz v Commission [1993] ECR II-1047, paras 56 and 57; T-60/99 Townsend v Commission [2000] ECR-SC I-A-11 and II-45, para. 53; T-208/00 Barleycorn Mongolue and Boixader Rivas v Council and Parliament [2001] ECR-SC I-A-103 and II-479, para. 34, and the case-law cited

(see paras 48-49)

See: T-118/95 Anacoreta Correia v Commission [1996] ECR-SC I-A-283 and II‑835, para. 25, and the case-law cited

5. The principle of non-discrimination requires that comparable situations should not be treated in a different manner unless the difference in treatment is objectively justified.

(see para. 50)

See: T-112/96 and T-115/96 Séché v Commission [1999] ECR-SC I-A-115 and II-623, para. 127; T-249/01 Boixader Rivas v Parliament [2003] ECR-SC I-A-153 and II-749, para. 30

6. The procedure provided for in Article 29(2) of the Staff Regulations is designed to offer the appointing authority a wider field of choice than that offered by Article 29(1).

Consequently, only persons who cannot submit an application under the procedure provided for in Article 29(1) of the Staff regulations may apply under the procedure provided for in Article 29(2).

(see para. 60)

See: T-97/99 and T-99/99 Chamier and O’Hannrachain v Parliament [2001] ECR-SC I-A-1 and II-1, para. 34

7. The concept of misuse of powers has a precise scope which refers to the use of its powers by an administrative authority for a purpose other than that for which they were conferred upon it. A decision is vitiated by misuse of powers only if it appears on the basis of objective, relevant and consistent evidence to have been taken with the purpose of achieving an end other than that stated.

(see para. 66)

See: T-118/95 Anacoreta Correia v Commission [1996] ECR-SC I-A-283 and II‑835, para. 25, and the case-law cited