(Open competition – Non-admission to tests – Competition notice – Prescribed relevant experience – Obligation to state reasons – Principle of sound administration and duty to have regard for the interests of officials)

Full text in French II - 0000

Application: for, first, annulment of the decision of 11 February 2002 of the selection board in competition COM/A/7/01 refusing to mark the applicant’s written test and rejecting his candidature, and of all subsequent steps and measures taken in that competition, and, second, compensation for the material and non-material damage allegedly suffered as a result of that decision.

Held: The application is dismissed. The claim in the alternative that the applicant should be allowed to produce evidence showing that the functions of a ‘Sonderschulrektor’ fall within the scope of the relevant experience called for by the competition notice is dismissed. The parties are ordered to bear their own costs.

Summary

(Staff Regulations, Annex III, Art. 1(1))

(Staff Regulations, Annex III, Art. 2)

3. Officials – Competitions – Competition based on qualifications and tests – Conditions of admission – Production of supporting documents for the purpose of admission to the tests – Obligation on candidates as laid down in the notice of competition – Scope

(Staff Regulations, Annex III, Arts 2 and 5)

(Staff Regulations, Art. 25, second para.)

(Staff Regulations, Annex III, Art. 2, second para.)

6. Officials – Actions – Action for compensation – No illegal act committed by the administration – Dismissal

(Staff Regulations, Art. 91)

(see para. 34)

See: T-386/00 Gonçalves v Parliament [2002] ECR-SC I-A-13 and II-55, para. 73

(see para. 37)

See: T-115/89 González Holguera v Parliament [1990] ECR II-831, para. 54; T-158/89 Van Hecken v ESC [1991] ECR II-1341, para. 22; T-214/99 Carrasco Benítez v Commission [2000] ECR-SC I-A-257 and II-1169, paras 69 and 71

3. In order to ascertain whether the conditions of admission have been satisfied, the selection board is entitled to take account only of the information provided by candidates in their application and of the documents which they are required to produce in support of it. A selection board cannot be required to make enquiries itself in order to ensure that candidates satisfy all the conditions laid down in the notice of competition. When clear provisions in a notice of competition lay down the unequivocal requirement that candidates attach to their application form all necessary supporting documents, a candidate’s failure to comply with that obligation cannot enable or, a fortiori, oblige the selection board or the appointing authority to act contrary to that notice of competition.

(see paras 45, 49)

See: C-255/90 P Burban v Parliament [1992] ECR I-2253, para. 12; Gonçalves v Parliament, para. 74, and the case-law cited; Carrasco Benítez v Parliament, para. 77

(see para. 54)

See: 69/83 Lux v Court of Auditors [1984] ECR 2447, para. 36; T-133/89 Burban v Parliament [1990] ECR II-245, para. 43; Gonçalves v Parliament, paras 61 and 62; Carrasco Benítez v Commission, para. 173

(see para. 76)

See: Burban v Parliament, paras 16 and 20; T-54/91 Almeida Antunes v Parliament [1992] ECR II-1739, para. 40; T-215/97 Jouhki v Commission [1998] ECR-SC I-A-503 and II-1513, para. 58; Carrasco Benítez v Commission, para. 78

6. The Commission can only be held liable to pay damages if a number of conditions are satisfied as regards the illegality of the allegedly wrongful act committed by the institutions, the actual harm suffered and the existence of a causal link between the act and the damage alleged to have been suffered.

A claim by a candidate in a competition for compensation for the damage he has allegedly been caused by a decision of the selection board refusing to mark his written test and rejecting his candidature must be rejected if that act has not been shown to be unlawful.

(see paras 87-88)

See: 111/86 Delauche v Commission [1987] ECR 5345, para. 30; T-330/00 and T-114/01 Cocchi and Hainz v Commission [2002] ECR-SC I-A-193 and II-987, para. 97; T-81/02 Wagemann-Reuter v Court of Auditors [2003] ECR-SC I-A-185 and II-933, para. 40