(Officials – Recruitment – Temporary agent – Vacancy notice – Recruitment procedure)

Full text in French II - 0000

Application: first, for annulment of the Council decision of 23 May 2002 appointing an additional Chairperson of a Board of Appeal and President of the Appeals Department of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OJ 2002 C 130, p. 2) and, second, for damages.

Held: The Council decision of 23 May 2002 appointing an additional Chairperson of a Board of Appeal and President of the Appeals Department of OHIM is annulled. The remainder of the action is dismissed. The Council is ordered to pay the costs.

Summary

(Council Regulation No 40/94, Arts 120(1) and 131(1))

In that regard, it is for the authority authorised to conclude contracts of engagement to examine meticulously the candidates’ files and observe scrupulously the requirements set out, inter alia, in the vacancy notice, so that that authority is required to reject any candidate who does not meet one of those requirements, given that they are cumulative. The vacancy notice constitutes a legal framework which the authority authorised to conclude contracts of engagement imposes on itself and to which it must adhere strictly.

Those requirements also apply to the Administrative Board of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market when it exercises the power conferred on it by Regulation No 40/94 on the Community trade mark in the procedure for the appointment of the Chairperson of the Boards of Appeal of that body. Even if it does not make that appointment itself, it has the task of drawing up the list of three candidates from which the Council will make that appointment, so that it has a wide discretion in selecting candidates and thus a decision-making role.

(see paras 63-68, 107)

See: C-35/92 P Parliament v Frederiksen [1993] ECR I‑991, paras 15 and 16; T‑356/94 Vecchi v Commission [1996] ECR-SC I‑A‑437 and II‑1251, paras 50 to 58; T‑95/01 Coget and Others v Court of Auditors [2001] ECR-SC I‑A‑191 and II‑879, para. 113; T‑158/01 Tilgenkamp v Commission [2002] ECR-SC I‑A‑111 and II‑595, para. 58; T‑73/01 Pappas v Committee of the Regions [2003] ECR‑SC I-A-207 and II-1011, paras 52 to 54

(see paras 125-126)

See: T‑82/91 Latham v Commission [1994] ECR-SC I‑A‑15 and II‑61, para. 72; T‑165/95 Lucaccioni v Commission [1998] ECR-SC I‑A‑203 and II‑627, para. 57; T‑172/00 Pierard v Commission [2001] ECR-SC I‑A‑91 and II‑429, paras 34 and 35

(see para. 127)

See: C‑343/87 Culin v Commission [1990] ECR I‑225, paras 25 to 29; T‑60/94 Pierrat v Court of Justice [1995] ECR-SC I‑A‑23 and II‑77, para. 62