(Civil service – Recruitment – Open competition – Conditions for admission – Rejection of application – Diplomas)

Application: brought under Articles 236 EC and 152 EA, in which Ms Iordanova seeks, first, annulment of the decision of the selection board in open competition EPSO/AST/14/06 refusing to admit her to the tests in that competition and, second, an order that the Commission pay damages to make good the loss allegedly suffered.

Held: The action is dismissed. Each party is to bear its own costs.

Summary

Officials – Competitions – Competition based on qualifications and tests – Conditions for admission – Diplomas submitted or professional experience presented

(Staff Regulations, Annex III, Arts 1 and 5)

The selection board in a competition based on qualifications and tests is responsible for determining, case by case, whether the diplomas submitted or the professional experience presented by each candidate correspond to the level required by the Staff Regulations and the notice of competition. Although bound by the wording of the notice of competition as published, the selection board enjoys a broad discretion in that regard and the Community judicature must confine itself to ascertaining whether the exercise of that discretion was vitiated by a manifest error.

(see paras 34-35)

See:

T-244/97 Mertens v Commission [1999] ECR-SC I‑A‑23 and II‑91, para. 44; T-139/00 Bal v Commission [2002] ECR-SC I‑A‑33 and II‑139, para. 35; T-332/01 Pujals Gomis v Commission [2002] ECR‑SC I‑A‑233 and II‑1155, paras 39 to 41; T-25/03 De Stefano v Commission [2005] ECR-SC I‑A‑125 and II‑573, para. 34

F-12/05 Tas v Commission [2006] ECR-SC I‑A‑1‑79 and II‑A‑1‑285, paras 39 and 43

JUDGMENT OF THE EUROPEAN UNION CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL (Second Chamber)

25 November 2008 (*)

(Staff cases – Recruitment – Open competition – Conditions for admission – Rejection of application – Diplomas)

In Case F‑53/07,

ACTION under Articles 236 EC and 152 EA,

Ivanka Iordanova, residing in Varna (Bulgaria), represented by G. Kerelov, lawyer,

applicant,

Commission of the European Communities, represented by J. Currall and B. Eggers, acting as Agents,

defendant,

THE TRIBUNAL (Second Chamber),

composed of S. Van Raepenbusch, President, I. Boruta and H. Kanninen (Rapporteur), Judges,

Registrar: R. Schiano, Administrator,

having regard to the written procedure and further to the hearing on 25 June 2008,

gives the following

1 This request for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of Directive 2011/92/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (OJ 2012 L 26, p. 1), as amended by Directive 2014/52/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 April 2014 (OJ 2014 L 124, p. 1) (‘Directive 2011/92’).

2 The request has been made in proceedings between, on the one hand, Waltham Abbey Residents Association and, on the other hand, An Bord Pleanála (Planning Board, Ireland; ‘the Board’), Ireland and the Attorney General (Ireland), concerning authorisation granted by the Board for a strategic residential housing development.

Legal context

European Union law

Directive 2011/92

Recitals 7 to 9 of Directive 2011/92 state:

‘(7) Development consent for public and private projects which are likely to have significant effects on the environment should be granted only after an assessment of the likely significant environmental effects of those projects has been carried out. …

(8) Projects belonging to certain types have significant effects on the environment and those projects should, as a rule, be subject to a systematic assessment.

ECLI:EU:C:2025:140

(9) Projects of other types may not have significant effects on the environment in every case and those projects should be assessed where the Member States consider that they are likely to have significant effects on the environment.’

Article 2(1) of that directive provides:

‘Member States shall adopt all measures necessary to ensure that, before development consent is given, projects likely to have significant effects on the environment by virtue, inter alia, of their nature, size or location are made subject to a requirement for development consent and an assessment with regard to their effects on the environment. Those projects are defined in Article 4.’

Under Article 3(1) of that directive:

‘The environmental impact assessment shall identify, describe and assess in an appropriate manner, in the light of each individual case, the direct and indirect significant effects of a project on the following factors:

…

(b) biodiversity, with particular attention to species and habitats protected under [Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (OJ 1992 L 206, p. 7), as amended by Council Directive 2013/17/EU of 13 May 2013 (OJ 2013 L 158, p. 193) (“Directive 92/43”)] and Directive 2009/147/EC [of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 November 2009 on the conservation of wild birds (OJ 2010 L 20, p. 7)];

…’

Article 4 of Directive 2011/92 provides:

‘1. Subject to Article 2(4), projects listed in Annex I shall be made subject to an assessment in accordance with Articles 5 to 10.

(a) a case-by-case examination;

(b) thresholds or criteria set by the Member State.

Member States may decide to apply both procedures referred to in points (a) and (b).

Where a case-by-case examination is carried out or thresholds or criteria are set for the purpose of paragraph 2, the relevant selection criteria set out in Annex III shall be taken into account. Member States may set thresholds or criteria to determine when projects need not undergo either the determination under paragraphs 4 and 5 or an environmental impact assessment, and/or thresholds or criteria to determine when projects shall in any case be made subject to an environmental impact assessment without undergoing a determination set out under paragraphs 4 and 5.

Where Member States decide to require a determination for projects listed in Annex II, the developer shall provide information on the characteristics of the project and its likely significant effects on the environment. The detailed list of information to be provided is specified in Annex IIA. The developer shall take into account, where relevant, the available results of other relevant assessments of the effects on the environment carried out pursuant to Union legislation other than this Directive. The developer may also provide a description of any features of the project and/or measures envisaged to avoid or prevent what might otherwise have been significant adverse effects on the environment.

The competent authority shall make its determination, on the basis of the information provided by the developer in accordance with paragraph 4 taking into account, where relevant, the results of preliminary verifications or assessments of the effects on the environment carried out pursuant to Union legislation other than this Directive. The determination shall made available to the public and:

(a) where it is decided that an environmental impact assessment is required, state the main reasons for requiring such assessment with reference to the relevant criteria listed in Annex III; or

(b) where it is decided that an environmental impact assessment is not required, state the main reasons for not requiring such assessment with reference to the relevant criteria listed in Annex III, and, where proposed by the developer, state any features of the project and/or measures envisaged to avoid or prevent what might otherwise have been significant adverse effects on the environment.

Member States shall ensure that the competent authority makes its determination as soon as possible and within a period of time not exceeding 90 days from the date on which the developer has submitted all the information required pursuant to paragraph 4. In exceptional cases, for instance relating to the nature, complexity, location or size of the project, the competent authority may extend that deadline to make its determination; in that event, the competent authority shall inform the developer in writing of the reasons justifying the extension and of the date when its determination is expected.’

Annex II.A of that directive contains the list of ‘information to be provided by the developer on the projects listed in Annex II’. That list reads as follows:

‘1. A description of the project, including in particular:

(a) a description of the physical characteristics of the whole project and, where relevant, of demolition works;

(b) a description of the location of the project, with particular regard to the environmental sensitivity of geographical areas likely to be affected.

(a) the expected residues and emissions and the production of waste, where relevant;

(b) the use of natural resources, in particular soil, land, water and biodiversity.

4

ECLI:EU:C:2025:140

JUDGMENT OF 6. 3. 2025 – CASE C-41/24 WALTHAM ABBEY RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION

The criteria of Annex III shall be taken into account, where relevant, when compiling the information in accordance with points 1 to 3.’

Annex III to that directive sets out the ‘criteria to determine whether the projects listed in Annex II should be subject to an environmental impact assessment’.

Directive 2014/52

Recitals 11 and 29 of Directive 2014/52 state:

‘(11) The measures taken to avoid, prevent, reduce and, if possible, offset significant adverse effects on the environment, in particular on species and habitats protected under [Directive 92/43] and Directive 2009/147 …, should contribute to avoiding any deterioration in the quality of the environment and any net loss of biodiversity, in accordance with the [European] Union’s commitments in the context of the [United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity, signed in Rio de Janeiro on 5 June 1992,] and the objectives and actions of the Union Biodiversity Strategy up to 2020 laid down in the [Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions] of 3 May 2011 entitled ‘Our life insurance, our natural capital: an EU biodiversity strategy to 2020’ [(COM(2011) 244 final)]

…

When determining whether significant effects on the environment are likely to be caused by a project, the competent authorities should identify the most relevant criteria to be considered and should take into account information that could be available following other assessments required by Union legislation in order to apply the screening procedure effectively and transparently. In this regard, it is appropriate to specify the content of the screening determination, in particular where no environmental impact assessment is required. Moreover, taking into account unsolicited comments that might have been received from other sources, such as members of the public or public authorities, even though no formal consultation is required at the screening stage, constitutes good administrative practice.’

Directive 92/43

Article 6(3) of Directive 92/43 provides:

‘Any plan or project not directly connected with or necessary to the management of the site but likely to have a significant effect thereon, either individually or in combination with other plans or projects, shall be subject to appropriate assessment of its implications for the site in view of the site’s conservation objectives. In the light of the conclusions of the assessment of the implications for the site and subject to the provisions of paragraph 4, the competent national authorities shall agree to the plan or project only after having ascertained that it will not adversely affect the integrity of the site concerned and, if appropriate, after having obtained the opinion of the general public.’

Article 12(1) of that directive provides:

‘Member States shall take the requisite measures to establish a system of strict protection for the animal species listed in Annex IV(a) in their natural range, prohibiting:

(a) all forms of deliberate capture or killing of specimens of these species in the wild;

(b) deliberate disturbance of these species, particularly during the period of breeding, rearing, hibernation and migration;

(c) deliberate destruction or taking of eggs from the wild;

(d) deterioration or destruction of breeding sites or resting places.’

Point (a) of Annex IV to that directive mentions ‘all species’ of bats belonging to the suborder of ‘microchiroptera’.

Irish law

The applicant accepts that at 30 September 2006 she did not have the required secondary education diploma, followed by at least three years’ full-time professional experience relevant to the duties specified in section A.I. of the notice of competition. However, she points out that this was not the only condition laid down in the notice of competition. The other, alternative, condition in the notice of competition was the possession of a post-secondary education diploma in a field relevant to the duties specified in section A.I. of that notice.

22She states that she clearly pointed out in her application that she had a post-secondary education diploma (three years’ education) at master’s level in finance with the qualification of ‘Economist – Specialist in Finance’. She enclosed a copy of that diploma and of the certificate joined to the diploma attesting the duration of the course, the subjects studied, the hours’ teaching for each subject and the marks she received. The documents sent to the selection board attested that that education was in a field relevant to the duties specified in section A.I. of the notice of competition.

23The applicant notes that an assistant in the secretarial field must understand correctly the sense and significance of oral and written statements, must be able to file the information he or she handles, and draft correspondence without spelling mistakes, or errors of meaning, syntax or style. The applicant’s post-secondary education diploma attests that she has all these fundamental skills. She states that she has in particular studied Computer Science (60 hours of classes and 75 hours of seminars), Business Correspondence (60 hours of seminars), and English (30 hours of classes and 30 hours of seminars).

24The applicant adds that in Bulgaria there is no post-secondary education diploma in the secretarial field.

25Lastly, the applicant argues that the selection board had evidence of her computer skills and skills in various administrative tasks since she registered for the competition on line, filled in and dispatched her application for the competition on line and exchanged correspondence with EPSO by e-mail and via the latter’s electronic portal.

26The Commission submits that the selection board in the contested competition did not commit a manifest error of assessment in determining that the applicant’s qualifications did not fulfil the conditions laid down by the notice of competition.

27It is not enough that the candidate has completed a course of post-secondary education and obtained a diploma. The candidate has to demonstrate in addition that the diploma is in a field relevant to the duties described in section A.I. In other words there must be a genuine relationship between the diploma and those duties.

28The Commission notes that it is clear from the judgment in Case F‑12/05 Tas v Commission [2006] ECR‑SC I‑A‑1‑79 and II‑A‑1‑285, paragraph 43, that even if the notice of competition does not specify how relevant the diploma must be to the duties, the relevance must be sufficient. It is for the selection board to determine, in light of the duties described in the notice of competition, what degree of relevance is sufficient.

29In the light of the duties described in the notice of competition, the Commission is of the view that the selection board was clearly entitled to consider that such duties required a knowledge of administrative and organisational matters.

30The Commission states that the applicant holds a master’s degree in Finance from the Dimitar Apostolov Tsenov Academy of Economics in the City of Svishtov in Bulgaria. On the basis of the list of subject areas studied, the Commission argues that the selection board could rightly conclude that there was not a sufficiently close link between the applicant’s studies and the tasks of an AST 1 official in the secretarial field.

31The Commission adds that the applicant’s argument that assistants must be capable of grasping complex problems and showing initiative cannot change the fundamental characteristics of the notice of competition, such as the description of the duties in section A.I. This part of the notice shows that the institution is seeking to recruit candidates who are likely to be able to take up their duties rapidly, either by reason of relevant higher educational qualifications, or by reason of relevant professional experience.

32The Commission next responds to the applicant’s argument that no post-secondary studies for secretaries exist in Bulgaria. It takes the view, first, that such an argument cannot mean that any Bulgarian university degree is relevant to the field of the contested competition, or alternatively that this condition should be disregarded. Secondly, the Commission notes that the applicant provides no evidence in support of her assertion, although the burden of proof is incumbent on her. The Commission adds that in any event it is aware of certain Bulgarian courses which might be relevant to administrative duties. It gives as an example of such a course in Bulgaria the ‘Specialist in Tourism’ diploma offered by the Ivan Vazov Institute of International Tourism in Varna. There are also similar diplomas for librarians, for example.

33Even if there were no relevant Bulgarian qualifications, the eligibility condition would not be devoid of sense since Bulgarians can take courses available in other Member States. At least one candidate was admitted to the competition at issue in the present case on the basis of a post-secondary course run by the Chamber of Commerce and Industry in London (United Kingdom) leading to a certificate in Business Administration and Business English.

C05Titre2Findings of the Tribunal

34It is settled case-law that the selection board in a competition based on qualifications and tests is responsible for determining, case by case, whether the diplomas submitted or the professional experience presented by each candidate correspond to the level required by the Staff Regulations and the notice of competition (Case T‑332/01 Pujals Gomis v Commission [2002] ECR‑SC I‑A‑233 and II‑1155, paragraphs 39 to 41, Tas v Commission, paragraph 39). The selection board enjoys a broad discretion in that regard and the Community judicature must confine itself to ascertaining whether the exercise of that discretion was vitiated by a manifest error (Case T‑244/97 Mertens v Commission [1999] ECR‑SC I‑A‑23 and II‑91, paragraph 44; Case T‑25/03 De Stefano v Commission [2005] ECR‑SC I‑A‑125 and II‑573, paragraph 34, and Tas v Commission, paragraph 39).

35It is also established case-law that, notwithstanding its discretion, the selection board is bound by the wording of the notice of competition as published (Case T‑139/00 Bal v Commission [2002] ECR‑SC I‑A‑33 and II‑139, paragraph 35, and Tas v Commission, paragraph 43).

36It is in the light of those considerations that the Tribunal must ascertain whether, in the circumstances of the present case, the selection board in the contested competition could, without committing a manifest error of assessment, refuse to admit the applicant to the tests in that competition on the ground that she did not fulfil the conditions of the notice of competition as regards the relevance of her post-secondary education diploma to the nature of the duties described in that notice.

37The notice of competition stipulated in section A.II.(1)(i) possession of a diploma in a field relevant to the duties described in section A.I. of that notice (see paragraph 4 above). Even though the notice of competition did not specify how relevant the diploma should be, the selection board could require, in the light of the duties described in section A.I. of the notice, that the relevance should be of a sufficient degree (see, to that effect, Tas v Commission, paragraph 43). It is therefore within that framework that the selection board was required to exercise its discretion.

38In order to determine whether the applicant’s secondary education diploma was relevant to the duties and whether it was sufficiently so, the selection board was required to assess the content of the diploma and take into particular consideration in that regard the subject areas studied.

39On this point, it should be noted first of all that neither the field chosen for the applicant’s master’s degree, namely finance, nor the specialist area of banking management in itself clearly establishes the relevance of these studies to the duties described in the notice of competition, which comprise secretarial work involving various administrative tasks.

40Secondly, the lists of the subject areas studied by the applicant do not disclose that she studied areas that prepared her for undertaking secretarial work.

41The applicant, however, points to the fact that she studied computer science and business correspondence. From this she infers that her diploma permits her ‘to understand correctly the sense and the significance of the oral and written statements done before [her], to be able to classify the information [she] handles, and to be able to do [her] correspondence work without any orthographic mistakes or any sense or style/language errors’.

42The acquisition of such skills cannot be taken to demonstrate in itself that the applicant’s diploma is sufficiently relevant to the duties described in the notice of competition. They cover only some aspects of the kind of duties described in the notice of competition. Moreover, the applicant has not explained to what extent the teaching she received in the subjects covered by her post-secondary education diploma corresponded to the specific demands of secretarial work.

43Lastly, it should be noted that the mere fact that the applicant’s application was properly submitted on line and that electronic messages were exchanged between her and EPSO does not show that the applicant had the requisite computer and administrative skills.

44It follows from all the foregoing that the selection board neither failed to comply with the wording of the notice of competition nor committed a manifest error of assessment by refusing to admit the applicant to the tests in the contested competition.

45The applicant maintained in her application, without expanding on the argument, that in Bulgaria there was no post-secondary education diploma in the secretarial field.

46In that regard, it is necessary first of all to point out that the notice of competition did not expressly require as a condition for admission to the competition possession of a diploma in the secretarial field, but rather a diploma in a field relevant to the duties described in the notice of competition. Moreover, the Commission cited in its defence and at the hearing examples of diplomas which, although not specifically relating to the secretarial field, were regarded by the selection board as fulfilling the conditions of the notice of competition. Moreover, as the Commission stated, in particular in its defence, the notice of competition did not exclude diplomas obtained in Member States other than Bulgaria.

47Lastly, it should be noted that the applicant has not contended that a total absence of candidates possessing a relevant diploma has shown the notice of competition, as far as that condition is concerned, to be inoperative for the purpose of admitting candidates.

48Consequently, the applicant’s argument derived from her assertion that in Bulgaria there was no post-secondary education diploma in the secretarial field must be rejected.

49It follows from all the foregoing that the single plea of breach of the notice of competition must be rejected, as too must the corresponding application for annulment.

C05Titre2The claim for damages

50The applicant claims payment of damages of EUR 28 718, amounting to one year’s salary, in respect of the material and non-material damage suffered as a result of the decision of the selection board in the contested competition, with statutory interest from the date on which the application was lodged.

51The Commission notes that the applicant does not submit any argument in support of her claim. The claim should therefore be rejected as inadmissible as it is contrary to Article 35 of the Rules of Procedure.

52In any event, the applicant did not demonstrate that the conditions are fulfilled for the Community to incur non-contractual liability.

53The Commission adds that the decision of the selection board in the contested competition is lawful. Moreover, there can be no sufficient certainty that the applicant would have passed the competition and would have been recruited by the Commission.

54At the hearing the applicant argued that the Tribunal’s decision will not affect the situation of the parties in any way since the tests in the contested competition are over and all the posts are now filled. Consequently, the applicant claimed that if the Tribunal were to accept her claim for annulment the only adequate penalty for the Commission would be to pay her damages.

C06Titre3Findings of the Tribunal

55It is settled case-law that a claim for compensation for damage must be rejected where it is closely related to a claim for annulment which has itself been rejected as inadmissible or unfounded (Case T‑330/03 Liakoura v Council [2004] ECR‑SC I‑A‑191 and II‑859, paragraph 69, and Case T‑5/04 Scano v Commission [2005] ECR‑SC I‑A‑205 and II‑931, paragraph 77).

56In the present case the claim for compensation is closely related to the claim for annulment since the applicant is claiming damages to make good the material and non-material loss resulting from the selection board’s decision not to admit her to the tests in the contested competition.

57Since consideration of the arguments submitted in support of the claim for annulment has revealed no illegality and, therefore, no wrong capable of giving rise to non-contractual liability on the part of the Community, the claim for damages must also be rejected, without the need to rule on the objection of inadmissibility raised by the Commission.

Costs

58The Rules of Procedure, adopted on 25 July 2007 (OJ 2007 L 225, p. 1), entered into force on 1 November 2007 under Article 121 thereof. The first paragraph of Article 122 of the Rules of Procedure provides that the provisions of Title 2, Chapter 8, on costs are to apply to this case as it was brought before the Tribunal after 1 November 2007.

59Under Article 87(1) of the Rules of Procedure, without prejudice to the other provisions of Title 2, Chapter 8, the unsuccessful party is to be ordered to pay the costs if they have been applied for in the successful party’s pleadings. Under Article 98(4) of the Rules of Procedure, where the recipient of legal aid is unsuccessful, the Tribunal may, in ruling as to costs in the decision closing the proceedings, if equity so requires, order that one or more other parties should bear their own costs or that those costs should be borne, in whole or in part, by the cashier of the Tribunal by way of legal aid.

60It should be noted that the applicant is the unsuccessful party. Moreover, in its pleadings, the Commission applied for the applicant to pay the costs.

61The circumstances of the present case however justify application of the provisions of Article 98(4) of the Rules of Procedure. By application lodged at the Registry of the Tribunal on 11 June 2007, the applicant requested legal aid in order to bring an action for annulment of the selection board’s decision refusing to admit her to the contested competition.

62As stated in paragraph 8 of this judgment, the President of the Tribunal granted the applicant legal aid, by order of 8 November 2007, with the consequence that the action in the main proceedings was not brought until after the entry into force of the Rules of Procedure of the Tribunal. In those circumstances, the Tribunal decides that each party shall bear its own costs.

On those grounds,

THE TRIBUNAL (Second Chamber)

hereby:

1. Dismisses the action;

Van Raepenbusch

Boruta

Kanninen

Delivered in open court in Luxembourg on 25 November 2008.

W. Hakenberg

Registrar

President

The text of the present decision and those of the decisions of the Community Courts cited in it which have not yet been published in the European Court Reports are available on the internet site of the Court of Justice: www.curia.europa.eu

* Language of the case: English.