(Officials – Open competition – Non-admission to test – Notice of competition – Age limit)

Full text in Spanish II - 0000

Application: for annulment of the decisions of the selection board in competition COM/A/6/01 of 31 July 2001 and of the selection board in competition COM/A/10/01 of 20 December 2001 refusing to admit the applicant to those tests on the ground that she exceeded the age limit and, in the alternative, applications for annulment of the rejection of the administrative complaints lodged by the applicant against the decisions of the selection boards in competitions COM/A/6/01 and COM/A/10/01.

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

Summary

(Staff Regulations, Art. 91)

(Staff Regulations, Arts 27, first para., and 29(1); Annex III, Art. 1(1)(g))

5. Officials – Recruitment – General principle of non-discrimination – Setting of an age limit – Whether permissible with regard to the legitimate objectives pursued

(Council Directive 2000/78)

6. Officials – Competition – Refusal of admission to a competition – Not possible for the person concerned to rely on the conditions of admission to other competitions

(see paras 45, 47)

See: T-60/92 Noonan v Commission [1993] ECR II-911, upheld by C‑448/93 P Commission v Noonan [1995] ECR I-2321

(see para. 59)

See: T-1/90 Perez-Mínguez Casariego v Commission [1991] ECR II-143, para. 56

The Staff Regulations confer a wide discretion on the appointing authority for the organisation of competitions. Indeed, provided that it complies with the provisions of the Staff Regulations and of the first paragraph of Article 27 and Article 29(1) in particular, the appointing authority enjoys a wide discretion in deciding upon the criteria of ability required for the posts that are to be filled and in determining, in the light of those criteria and in the interests of the service, the rules and conditions under which a competition is organised.

Among the criteria that Community selection procedures must meet, Article 27 of the Staff Regulations does not impose a requirement to ensure that persons recruited are selected without reference to age. Article 29(1) of the Staff Regulations, which lays down the framework for the procedures for filling vacant posts, does not impose any obligation in this regard either.

The exercise of the discretion enjoyed by the institutions with respect to the holding of competitions, in particular as regards setting an age limit as a specific condition of admission to competitions, is compatible with the provisions of the first paragraph of Article 27 and Article 29(1) of the Staff Regulations.

(see paras 78, 80-84)

See: 90/74 Deboeck v Commission [1975] ECR 1123, para. 29; T-132/89 Gallone v Council [1990] ECR II-549, para. 27; T-56/89 Bataille and Others v Parliament [1990] ECR II-597, para. 42; T-214/99 Carrasco Benítez v Commission [2000] ECR-SC I-A-257 and II-1169, para. 52

(see paras 87-88)

See: T-377/00, T-379/00, T-380/00, T-260/01 and T-272/01 Philip Morris International and Others v Commission [2003] ECR II-1, para. 122

5. In imposing age limits in its recruitment procedures, the Commission is pursuing the aim of allowing reasonable career prospects both for officials who have an extended career ahead of them at the Commission and for those officials who are recruited at a greater age, and the aim of ensuring that officials perform their duties for a certain minimum period of time, in the light of the rights laid down by the Staff Regulations in terms of pension, in other words of maintaining the financial balance of Community pension funds. In the light of these objectives, this limit is reasonable and proportionate. The Commission can thus not be accused of breaching either the general principle of non-discrimination or Directive 2000/78, establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation.

(see paras 95-100)

See: T-14/03 Di Marzio v Commission [2004] ECR-SC I-A-43 and II-167, para. 83

6. Measures adopted by one institution in favour of a particular group of persons cannot, in the absence of any legal obligation under the Staff Regulations, be relied on in support of an allegation of infringement of the principle of equal treatment by officials of another institution.

Similarly, a candidate for a given competition who has not been admitted cannot rely to any purpose on the conditions of admission to other competitions, organised according to different procedures and pursuing different objectives.

(see paras 110, 112)

See: C-193/87 and C-194/87 Maurissen and Union syndicale v Court of Auditors [1990] ECR I-95, paras 26 and 27; T-82/92 Cortes Jiménez and Others v Commission [1994] ECR-SC I-A-69 and II-237, para. 44; T‑101/96 Wolf v Commission [1997] ECR-SC I-A-351 and II-949