CELEX: 62007FJ0039
Public service
Officials
Recruitment

By application received at the Registry of the Tribunal on 23 April 2007 by fax (the original being received on 25 April 2007),
Mr Campos Valls brought the present action for annulment, first, of the decision of the appointing authority appointing Mr
G. to the post of Head of the Spanish Language Unit of Directorate 3: Translation and Document Production of Directorate General
(DG) A Personnel and Administration of the Council of the European Union (‘the contested post’) and, second, of the decision
rejecting his candidature for the contested post.

Legal context
Article 4 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communities (‘the Staff Regulations’) provides:
‘No appointment or promotion shall be made for any purpose other than that of filling a vacant post as provided for in these
Staff Regulations.
Vacant posts in an institution shall be notified to the staff of that institution once the appointing authority decides that
the vacancy is to be filled.
If the vacancy cannot be filled by transfer, appointment to a post in accordance with Article 45a or promotion, it shall be
notified to the staff of the other institutions, and/or an internal competition shall be organised.’
Article 7(1), first subparagraph, of the Staff Regulations provides:
‘The Appointing Authority shall, acting solely in the interest of the service and without regard to nationality, assign each
official by appointment or transfer to a post in his function group which corresponds to his grade.’
Article 29(1) of the Staff Regulations reads:
‘Before filling a vacant post in an institution, the Appointing Authority shall first consider:
(a)      whether the post can be filled by:
(i)      transfer, or
(ii)      appointment in accordance with Article 45a, or
(iii) promotion
within the institution;
…
and then follow the procedure for competitions on the basis either of qualifications or of tests …’
Article 45(1) of the Staff Regulations provides:
‘Promotion shall be by decision of the Appointing Authority in the light of Article 6(2). It shall be effected by appointment
of the official to the next higher grade in the function group to which he belongs. Promotion shall be exclusively by selection
from among officials who have completed a minimum of two years in their grade after consideration of the comparative merits
of the officials eligible for promotion. When considering comparative merits, the Appointing Authority shall in particular
take account of the reports on the officials, the use of languages in the execution of their duties other than the language
for which they have produced evidence of thorough knowledge in accordance with Article 28(f) and, where appropriate, the level
of responsibilities exercised by them.’

Facts
On 15 March 2006 the General Secretariat of the Council published in Staff Note No 46/06 Notice of Vacancy 60/06 for the post
of Head of the Spanish Language Unit of Directorate 3: Translation and Production of Documents of DG A Personnel and Administration
(Category A, Grade 14, 13 or 12) (‘the vacancy notice’).
The wording of the vacancy notice under the heading ‘Job description’ is as follows:
‘–      Be responsible, under the coordination of the heads of the language service, for the management of the Spanish Language Unit,
as regards both human resources (translators, secretaries and support staff) and overall production (preparation, translation,
revision and final presentation of documents, compliance with time limits and quality standards);
–        contribute to drawing up and implementing guidelines of the [General Secretariat of the Council] in language matters, in particular
with regard to the Spanish language;
–        provide contact with individuals and arrange regular meetings with some or all of the members of the unit;
–        so far as the Spanish language is concerned, manage contacts with opposite numbers in other institutions and cooperate with
them;
–        manage structural changes agreed in connection with reorganisation of [Directorate 3: Translation and Production of Documents
of DG A Personnel and Administration] following the latest enlargement.’
The wording under the heading ‘Qualifications required’ is as follows:
‘The applicant must:
–        be a Council official;
–        be in Category A*, grade 14, 13 or 12;
–        possess management skills and an awareness of the responsibilities involved in managing a language unit;
–        possess the skill to manage organisational change;
–        have a good knowledge of the work of the General Secretariat and its procedures; have a knowledge of translation and organisational
techniques and of the working methods of the General Secretariat of the Council;
–        possess coordination and organisational skills, interpersonal skills and the ability to communicate (team working, conflict
management, flexibility, staff motivation, …);
–        have a very good knowledge of Spanish, and sufficient knowledge of English and/or French to enable him or her to draft in
one or other of those languages.’
The applicant, who was promoted on 22 December 1994 to grade LA 3 (now, since 1 May 2006, AD 14) and assigned to the Spanish
Language Unit as a Linguistic Adviser, applied for the contested post.
In its report of 30 May 2006, the selection board, after interviewing four candidates including Mr G. and the applicant, took
the view that Mr G. was the only candidate who met the conditions laid down for the contested post and went on to recommend
that his candidature should be accepted.
By memorandum of 7 June 2006 the applicant was informed that his candidature had not been successful. That memorandum stated
that ‘another candidature which meets more fully the requirements [of the contested post]’ had been selected.
On 9 June 2006 the staff of the General Secretariat of the Council were informed of the appointing authority’s decision to
appoint Mr G. to the contested post with effect from 1 July 2006.
On 6 September 2006 the applicant lodged a complaint under Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations against the decision appointing
Mr G. and the decision rejecting his own candidature.
By decision of 8 January 2007, sent to the applicant’s lawyer by fax of 11 January 2007, the appointing authority rejected
the complaint.

Procedure and forms of order sought
By way of measures of organisation of procedure, the Tribunal asked the Council, in accordance with Article 55(2)(d) of the
Rules of Procedure of the Tribunal, to produce a copy in full of the vacancy notice and a copy of the internal guidelines
applying in connection with the procedure for selecting candidates.
By letter received at the Registry of the Tribunal on 30 April 2008 by fax (the original being lodged on 8 May 2008), the
Council produced:
–        a copy in full of the vacancy notice;
–        a copy of Note No 113/04 of 16 July 2004 to the staff of the General Secretariat of the Council concerning Decision No 111/2004
of the Deputy Secretary-General implementing Article 7(4) of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations and containing the organisation
chart of managerial posts within the General Secretariat of the Council and the list of officials holding them at 30 April
2004;
–        a copy of a memorandum of 17 June 2005 to officials in Category A* concerning the procedure for filling head of unit posts;
–        a copy of Note to staff of the Council General Secretariat No 188/04 of 9 November 2004 concerning the procedure for selecting
heads of unit.
In its letter in reply to the measures of organisation of procedure, the Council explained that it had envisaged adopting
a new procedure for filling head of unit posts. According to the Council, that procedure entailed applying to the process
of selecting heads of unit the practical arrangements used for filling directors’ posts, with a few alterations. The Council
added that, pending formalisation of that procedure, the practical arrangements involved following,
mutatis mutandis
, the procedure laid down for filling directors’ posts. Thus, when filling head of unit posts, the appointing authority was
to be assisted by a selection board comprising a chairperson (the Director-General/Director of the ‘applicant’ service), two
members appointed by the appointing authority and one member appointed by the staff committee.
At the hearing the Tribunal asked the Council to produce the file on Mr G.’s candidature and all the documents prepared by
the selection board concerning the assessment of the qualifications required of the candidates in the vacancy notice, including,
if appropriate, the table setting out the comparative merits of the candidates who had taken part in the selection procedure.
By letter received at the Registry of the Tribunal on 17 June 2008 by fax (the original being lodged on 20 June 2008), the
Council complied with the Tribunal’s request. By letter received at the Registry of the Tribunal on 7 July 2008 by fax (the
original being lodged on 12 July 2008), the applicant submitted his observations on the documents produced by the Council.
The Tribunal declared, by decision of 12 July 2008, that the oral procedure was closed and that the case should proceed to
deliberation.
The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:
–        annul the decisions of the appointing authority rejecting his candidature and appointing Mr G. to the contested post;
–        order the Council to pay the costs.
The Council contends that the Tribunal should:
–        dismiss the action;
–        order each of the parties to bear its own costs.

Law
In support of his action, the applicant raises three pleas in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment, infringement of
the vacancy notice and infringement of Article 45 of the Staff Regulations.
It is appropriate to consider all the pleas put forward by the applicant together, since they are based on the same line of
argument.

Arguments of the parties
The applicant notes in the first place that among the qualifications required by the vacancy notice was one stipulating that
candidates should have a good knowledge of the work of the General Secretariat of the Council, of Council procedures and working
methods and a knowledge of translation and organisational techniques.
According to the applicant, after obtaining his degree in law and European law, Mr G. began work in the Consumer Protection
Service of the Commission of the European Communities; he was then appointed to DG E 6 (Balkans) and DG H 1 (Asylum) of the
General Secretariat of the Council and lastly to the unit concerned with modernising the administration, follow-up of audits,
and equal opportunities within the service dealing with general administrative matters. Consequently, Mr G. does not have
‘any training or professional experience in the field of translation and more specifically in the particular translation techniques
and new translation working methods of the [General Secretariat of the Council] (Trados and Euramis)’.
In his reply, the applicant claims that although the tasks of translation and quality control are not carried out by heads
of unit in Directorate 3: Translation and Production of Documents of DG A Personnel and Administration, but by the translators
and quality controllers, the fact remains that, according to the vacancy notice, the person appointed to the contested post
would be responsible for managing the Spanish Language Unit as regards both human resources and overall production (preparation,
translation, revision and final presentation of documents, meeting deadlines and quality standards). The applicant queries
whether a head of unit is capable of taking on any such responsibility within the translation process without being able to
demonstrate a sound and proven knowledge of translation techniques. The head of unit should, in particular, be in a position
to check on the work of the quality controller and the translators in order to manage human resources and overall production.
In the applicant’s submission, although it adverted to Mr G.’s four years’ service in administrative management, the Council
has been unable to show that the candidate concerned possesses a knowledge of translation techniques. Even if Mr G. can be
said to have some knowledge in the field of translation, it could not in any event be a knowledge of translation techniques
comparable to that of the applicant, who has demonstrated his mastery in that regard over many years.
In his observations referred to in paragraph 19 above, the applicant contends that the selection board found that Mr G. had
no training or practical experience as a linguist and that he might take a technocratic approach. In that regard, the applicant
relies on the selection board’s assessment table, which states, in the ‘Job-related aspects’ section, that Mr G. ‘has no practical
experience or training as a linguist’ and in the ‘Management and team working aspects’ section that Mr G. ‘might take a technocratic
approach’.
In addition, the applicant complains that the selection board and the appointing authority failed to take into consideration
the candidates’ last three staff reports. In his view, his staff reports contain sufficient evidence to prove that he possesses
all the necessary qualifications, including the management skills and awareness of responsibilities required in order to manage
a team of linguists and also the coordination and organisational skills.
Lastly, again in his observations referred to in paragraph 19 above, the applicant also considers that the selection board
committed a manifest error of assessment in commenting in respect of his candidature that his unconvincing knowledge of English
was a negative point, and by failing to regard his command of French as a positive point. In that connection, the applicant
observes that the qualifications required by the vacancy notice merely called for a very good knowledge of Spanish, and sufficient
knowledge of English and/or French to enable the person concerned to draft in one or other of those languages.
The Council replies first of all that Mr G. meets all the conditions laid down in the vacancy notice and that, therefore,
in deciding to appoint him to the contested post the appointing authority did not use its discretion in a manifestly incorrect
manner.
The Council also states that the conditions laid down in the vacancy notice should be read in the light of the job description
contained in the vacancy notice. The vacancy notice describes the work of a head of unit as being to manage the Spanish Language
Unit of Directorate 3: Translation and Production of Documents of DG A Personnel and Administration, and not to perform the
tasks of a translator by overseeing the translations of the members of the unit.
As regards in particular the knowledge of translation techniques required by the vacancy notice, the Council maintains that
it is clear from that condition that it is not professional experience in the field of translation that is required but simply
a knowledge of translation techniques. In that connection, the Council observes that the applicant appears to confuse knowledge
in the field of translation with experience in that field.
The Council also states that Mr G. had acquired, through his previous work, a knowledge of specific translation techniques
and working methods, particularly with regard to methods that could improve overall production. The applicant, on the other
hand, provides no evidence to support his assertion that he meets all the conditions laid down in the vacancy notice, in contrast
to the opinion of the selection board, which considered that it was only Mr G. who met those conditions.
Lastly, the Council claims that the plea alleging violation of Article 45 of the Staff Regulations is inadmissible on the
ground that the applicant does not explain in what way the appointing authority infringed that provision.
On this point, the Council argues, in the alternative, that Article 45 of the Staff Regulations is concerned with decisions
on promotion, whereas in the present case the contested post was filled in accordance with Articles 4, 7(1) and 29(1) of the
Staff Regulations, since both the applicant and Mr G. were in a grade within the band of grades stipulated in the vacancy
notice (grades 12 to 14).
In the Council’s view, it follows from this that the applicant’s arguments in that regard can only be interpreted as referring
to the comparative examination of the candidatures for the contested post. Such an examination was carried out with the assistance
of the selection board. Hence, the arguments relating to failure to comply with the conditions laid down in Article 45 of
the Staff Regulations, taken in conjunction with Article 29(1) of the Staff Regulations, are unfounded.
In its rejoinder, the Council states that a knowledge of translation techniques is only one of the conditions laid down in
the vacancy notice. The role of a head of unit is to manage a unit. In that respect, unlike the applicant, Mr G. meets the
conditions laid down in the vacancy notice.

Findings of the Tribunal
The applicant claims that Mr G., who was selected to occupy the contested post, does not possess all the qualifications required
by the vacancy notice. Mr G. has no training or professional experience of translation and, more specifically, of translation
techniques. At the hearing the applicant stated that the decision not to accept his own candidature was also unlawful in so
far as it was judged that he did not meet the conditions laid down in the vacancy notice. The dispute therefore turns on the
assessment of the applicant’s qualifications and those of Mr G. in the light of the interpretation to be given to the conditions
laid down in the vacancy notice.
It is established case-law that the wide latitude available to the appointing authority regarding appointment presupposes
that it should carefully and impartially examine the candidates’ files and have meticulous regard to the requirements laid
down in the vacancy notice, so that it is required to reject any candidate who does not meet those requirements. The vacancy
notice thus constitutes a legal framework which the appointing authority imposes on itself and must observe meticulously (Joined
Cases 341/85, 251/86, 258/86, 259/86, 262/86, 266/86, 222/87 and 232/87
van der Stijl and Cullington
v
Commission
[1989] ECR 511, paragraph 51; Case C‑35/92 P
Parliament
v
Frederiksen
[1993] ECR I‑991, paragraphs 15 and 16; Case T‑159/96
Wenk
v
Commission
[1998] ECR-SC I‑A‑193 and II‑593, paragraph 63; Case T‑137/03
Mancini
v
Commission
[2005] ECR-SC I‑A‑7 and II‑27, paragraph 85; Case T‑30/04
Sena
v
EASA
[2005] ECR-SC I‑A‑113 and II‑519, paragraph 80; Case T‑370/03
Wunenburger
v
Commission
[2005] ECR‑SC I‑A‑189 and II‑853, paragraph 51; and Case T‑45/04
Tzirani
v
Commission
[2006] ECR-SC I‑A‑2‑145 and II‑A‑2‑681, paragraph 46).
In order to determine whether the appointing authority exceeded the bounds of the legal framework, it is incumbent on the
Tribunal to examine first of all what conditions were laid down in the vacancy notice and then to ascertain whether the candidate
selected by the appointing authority to fill the vacant post did indeed meet those conditions (Case T‑21/96
Giannini
v
Commission
[1997] ECR‑SC I‑A‑69 and II‑211, paragraph 20;
Wenk
v
Commission
, paragraph 64; and
Tzirani
v
Commission
, paragraph 48). Lastly, the Tribunal must examine whether, as regards the applicant’s capabilities, the appointing authority
did not commit a manifest error of assessment in preferring another candidate to him (
Wenk
v
Commission
, paragraph 72, and
Mancini
v
Commission
, paragraph 92).
Such a review must be limited to whether, in the light of the considerations which led the administration to arrive at its
assessment, the administration kept within reasonable limits and did not use its power in a manifestly erroneous manner. The
Tribunal may not therefore substitute its own assessment of the candidates’ qualifications for that of the appointing authority
(
Wenk
v
Commission
, paragraph 64; Case T‑152/00
E
v
Commission
[2001] ECR-SC I‑A‑179 and II‑813, paragraph 29; Case T‑174/02
Wieme
v
Commission
[2003] ECR-SC I‑A‑241 and II‑1165, paragraph 38; Case T‑248/02
Faita
v
ESC
[2003] ECR-SC I‑A‑281 and II‑1365, paragraph 71; and
Tzirani
v
Commission
, paragraph 49).
In the light of the abovementioned principles, it is necessary in the first place to identify those qualifications required
by the vacancy notice which, in the applicant’s submission, Mr G. did not meet.
The vacancy notice contained, under the heading ‘Job description’, five subparagraphs, which are reproduced in paragraph 7
above. Also, under the heading ‘Qualifications required’, the vacancy notice listed in seven subparagraphs the requirements
reproduced in paragraph 8 above. The first two of those seven subparagraphs, which are of a general nature, required candidates
to be officials of the Council and to be in Category A*, grade 14, 13 or 12. The last paragraph concerned knowledge of languages.
The third, fourth and sixth subparagraphs required, in particular, management, coordination and organisational skills. Lastly,
the fifth paragraph required candidates to have ‘a good knowledge of the work of the General Secretariat and its procedures’
and a knowledge of ‘translation and organisation techniques and of the working methods of the General Secretariat of the Council’.
Since the applicant disputes Mr G.’s knowledge of translation matters, the point at issue in the present case must be taken
to be the requirement concerning translation techniques laid down in the fifth subparagraph of the vacancy notice, under the
heading ‘Qualifications required’. Moreover, in his pleadings the applicant himself places particular reliance on that condition
of the vacancy notice.
Secondly, the applicant, while not claiming that the Head of the Spanish Language Unit should perform the tasks of translating
or controlling the quality of translations, does maintain that, in order to perform managerial tasks and be responsible for
organisation, the head of that unit should have a sound knowledge of translation techniques.
In that connection, the actual wording of the vacancy notice spells out that it was not sufficient for candidates to have
knowledge in the fields of management and organisation and the work of the General-Secretariat of the Council. Candidates
also needed to have specific knowledge in the field of translation, since a knowledge of translation techniques was required.
It is therefore necessary, thirdly, to establish the meaning and scope of the requirement of a knowledge of translation techniques.
As the Council points out, the qualifications required cannot be interpreted independently of the job description (see to
that effect
Tzirani
v
Commission
, paragraph 53). Those qualifications, which are listed in paragraph 7 above, emphasise the role of the post-holder as a manager
and organiser. Consequently, the requirement of a knowledge of translation techniques is to be interpreted in the light of
that specific role assigned to the post-holder.
In that connection, since the tasks relating to the contested post do not directly involve translation or control of the quality
of translation, but involve essentially management and organisation, the condition stipulating a knowledge of translation
techniques cannot be interpreted as requiring the same qualifications as those needed for the post of translator or controller
of translation quality. It should also be observed that there is no condition in the vacancy notice concerning training or
experience in the field of translation.
That understanding of the role of head of unit is confirmed by documents produced by the Council which describe the new structure
of Directorate 3: Translation and Production of Documents of DG A Personnel and Administration, of which the Language Service
is a part, and hence the Spanish Language Unit also. It is clear in particular from the document entitled ‘Modernising the
administration of the [General Secretariat of the Council], a report on an optimal structure for Directorate 3: Translation
and Production of Documents of DG A Personnel and Administration, a new administrative  structure’, in the version dated 8
July 2004, that the head of unit is ‘under the authority of the heads of the Language Service’ and is to ‘be responsible for
managing the unit and overall production’. That document also states that within each language unit there will be a person
responsible for product quality, who will be responsible for the overall quality of documents.
Thus, it is clear that one of the objectives of reorganising Directorate 3: Translation and Production of Documents of DG
A Personnel and Administration was to entrust a managerial role to the head of unit, whilst the person in the unit responsible
for product quality would have responsibility for the overall quality of documents and, in particular, of their translation.
It follows from the foregoing analysis of the tasks of a head of unit that the appointing authority did not exceed its discretionary
powers with regard to the interpretation to be given to the condition laid down in the vacancy notice concerning knowledge
of translation techniques.
This being so, it is necessary to establish whether Mr G. satisfied that condition.
As documented in the material produced by the Council at the request of the Tribunal, a selection board composed of six persons
was appointed by the Council on 7 April 2006. The selection board decided to use an assessment table as a guide during interviews
with the candidates. That table contained three sections, with a maximum number of marks for each: 30 marks for the ‘Personal
aspects’ section, 30 marks for the ‘Job-related aspects’ section and 40 marks for the ‘Management and team working aspects’
section. The selection board also decided that only those candidates who obtained a  minimum of 50 marks out of 100 could
be recommended for the contested post.
The selection board held interviews with four candidates, including the applicant and Mr G. After those interviews a consolidated
version of the assessment table was prepared in respect of each candidate, reflecting the views of all the members of the
selection board. That version also lists the number of marks awarded to each candidate in each of the three sections of the
table and the total number of marks obtained. The assessment forms disclose that Mr G. obtained a total of 70 marks, made
up as follows: 24 marks in the ‘Personal aspects’ section, 18 marks in the ‘Job-related aspects’ section and 28 marks in the
‘Management and team working aspects’ section.
The ‘Job-related aspects’ section of Mr G.’s assessment form contains the following positive comments: ‘Very familiar with
the functioning of the [General Secretariat of the Council] (as regards both policy and administrative matters) – Was involved
in drawing up the proposal for reorganising [Directorate 3: Translation and Production of Documents of DG A Personnel and
Administration] – Was actively involved in the [think-tank] on the optimal structure of the Language Service’. The negative
comment in that section is: ‘Has no practical experience or training as a linguist’.
The documents produced by the Council, in particular Mr G.’s request for a transfer and his curriculum vitae, also reveal
that he had been actively involved in the reform of Directorate 3: Translation and Production of Documents of DG A Personnel
and Administration, the directorate which the language units come under, and that for several years he had been ‘[i]n charge
of projects for modernising the administration, in particular those relating to job descriptions, the organisation chart (including
introducing into the [General Secretariat of the Council] the concept of head of unit), financial organisation, decentralising
the administration, reform of DG A [Personnel and  Administration, Directorate 3 Translation and Production of Documents]
and sound administrative practices’.
In its statement in defence, the Council makes the further point, which the applicant does not dispute, that since his transfer
in January 2002 to the unit concerned with modernising the administration, follow-up of audits, and equal opportunities, within
the service dealing with general administrative matters, Mr G. had been in charge of Project 11, concerning the action plan
for modernising the administration (PAMA), reform of DG A Personnel and Administration. According to the Council, ‘that project
was subdivided into [five] sub-projects concerning, respectively, [c]entral coordination, language services and secretarial
services, documents and terminology support services, appropriate organisation of the secretarial function and divisional
aid and technical production services’. The Council adds that, since he was a project leader, Mr G. was also a member of the
[Directorate 3: Translation and Production of Documents DG A Personnel and Administration] Study Group on the action plan
for modernising the administration of the [General Secretariat of the Council], the group which, between 2002 and 2004, drew
up reports for Directorate 3: Translation and Production of Documents of DG A Personnel and Administration, and for the Director
General in charge of modernising administration, on documentary support for translation and terminology, on measures designed
to ensure quality, on the tasks of translation and revision, the exchange of important information, and use by translators
of computers and appropriate software.
In those circumstances and in view of the interpretation given to the requirement stipulating a knowledge of translation techniques,
the applicant cannot claim that the appointing authority disregarded the conditions laid down in the vacancy notice in considering
that Mr G. met those conditions. Furthermore, in the light of the interpretation to be given to the condition stipulating
a knowledge of translation techniques, the applicant’s argument that Mr G.’s assessment table contains, in the ‘Job-related
aspects’ section, the negative comment ‘has no practical experience or training as a linguist’, is without relevance since
such experience or training is not one of the conditions laid down in the vacancy notice.
Lastly, it is necessary to establish whether or not the appointing authority made a manifest error of assessment in rejecting
the applicant’s candidature.
In that connection, in the decision rejecting the applicant’s candidature, the appointing authority informed the applicant
that it had selected another candidature ‘which meets more fully’ the requirements of the contested post.
At the hearing the Council’s representative explained that, in the view of the appointing authority, the applicant did not
meet the requirements of the contested post as fully as Mr G.
As already stated in paragraph 56 above, the selection board had decided that only candidates obtaining a minimum of 50 marks
out of 100 on the assessment table could be recommended for the contested post. It is also to be noted that the selection
board did not reject any of the candidatures submitted by the four candidates invited to interviews on grounds of failure
to comply with one of the conditions laid down in the vacancy notice, and that the interviews concerned took place before
the selection board submitted the candidatures to a comparative examination.
The applicant’s candidature was not therefore rejected on the ground that he failed to satisfy one of the qualifications required
by the vacancy notice, but after an examination of the candidates’ comparative merits. The fact that an official has evident
and acknowledged merits does not exclude the possibility that, in the context of consideration of the comparative merits of
candidates, other officials may have higher merits (
Wunenburger
v
Commission
, paragraph 74, and Case F‑46/07
Tzirani
v
Commission
[2008] ECR‑SC I‑A‑1-0000 and II‑A-1-0000, paragraph 119).
For the purposes of the present case, it is therefore necessary to examine whether the appointing authority committed a manifest
error of assessment in its comparison of the merits of Mr G. and the applicant.
In that connection, it should be observed that the applicant’s arguments are based mainly on the premiss that his interpretation
of the condition concerning  a knowledge of translation techniques is accepted. However, since that interpretation must be
rejected, for the reasons given in paragraphs 49 to 54 above, the applicant cannot claim that the appointing authority committed
a manifest error of assessment.
In the first place, the selection board awarded very different marks to Mr G. from those it awarded to the applicant. As already
stated in paragraph 57 above, Mr G. received a total of 70 marks, made up as follows: 24 marks in the ‘Personal aspects’ section,
18 marks in the ‘Job-related aspects’ section and 28 marks in the ‘Management and team working aspects’ section. For his part,
the applicant received a total of only 42 marks, made up as follows: 10 marks in the ‘Personal aspects’ section, 20 marks
in the ‘Job-related aspects’ section and 12 marks in the ‘Management and team working aspects’ section.
In the second place, in the light of the interpretation to be given to the condition laid down in the vacancy notice concerning
a knowledge of translation techniques, the applicant’s arguments do not cast doubt on the structure of the assessment table
used by the selection board, in particular regarding the weight given to the condition in the vacancy notice concerning management
skills.
In the third place, the applicant has not established that he meets the conditions of the vacancy notice more fully than Mr
G., particularly in view of the way in which they must be interpreted as regards the condition concerning knowledge of translation
techniques.
It follows that the appointing authority did not commit a manifest error of assessment in considering that Mr G.’s candidature
satisfied the requirements of the contested post more fully than that of the applicant.
That conclusion is not invalidated by the argument that the selection board failed to take into account in the course of its
work the last three staff reports, in breach of Article 45 of the Staff Regulations. To begin with, the Council maintains
in its defence that the last three staff reports were taken into consideration. In his observations referred to in paragraph
19 above, the applicant states that the  documents which the Council submitted to the Tribunal do not contain any mention
of an examination of those reports. However, it cannot be inferred merely from the absence of any reference to those reports
on the candidates’ assessment tables that the selection board did not examine those reports (see, to that effect Case F‑44/05
Strack
v
Commission
[2008] ECR‑SC I‑A‑1-0000 and II-A-1‑0000, paragraph 165). Also, even assuming that the applicant’s staff reports do mention
his management and organisational skills, the applicant has not established that those reports would be such as to show that
the appointing authority committed a manifest error of assessment in considering that Mr G.’s candidature met the requirements
of the contested post more fully than did his own. In that regard account must be taken of the significant difference noted
by the selection board in the comparative examination of the applicant’s merits and those of Mr G.
Lastly, even if the selection board did commit a wrong in giving an assessment of the applicant’s knowledge of English, that
is not sufficient to prove that the appointing authority committed a manifest error of assessment. On this point also, the
significant difference noted by the selection board in its comparative examination of the applicant’s merits and those of
Mr G. should be taken into account. What is more, in his curriculum vitae the applicant mentioned his knowledge not only of
French but also of English, which he describes as ‘excellent’. In addition, as regards the level of the applicant’s knowledge
of French, the fact that the selection board did not comment on this on the assessment table, either positively or negatively,
does not indicate the existence of a manifest error of assessment.
It follows from all the foregoing that the pleas alleging a manifest error of assessment, infringement of the vacancy notice
and infringement of Аrticle 45 of the Staff Regulations must be rejected without there being any need to rule on the objection
of inadmissibility raised by the Council in regard to the plea alleging infringement of Article 45 of the Staff Regulations.
The action must therefore be dismissed in its entirety.

Costs
Under Article 122 of the Rules of Procedure of the Tribunal, the provisions of Title 2, Chapter 8, of those Rules on costs
apply only to cases brought before the Tribunal from the date on which the Rules enter into force, namely, 1 November 2007.
The relevant provisions of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities continue to apply
mutatis mutandis
to cases pending before the Tribunal before that date.
Under Article 87(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, the unsuccessful party is to be ordered to pay
the costs if they have been applied for in the successful party’s pleadings. However, under Article 88 of those Rules, in
proceedings between the Communities and their servants the institutions are to bear their own costs. Since the applicant has
been unsuccessful, each party must be ordered to bear its own costs.
On those grounds,
THE TRIBUNAL (Third Chamber)
hereby:
1.
Dismisses the action;
2.
Orders each party to bear its own costs.
Mahoney
Kanninen
Gervasoni
Delivered in open court in Luxembourg on 6 May 2009.
W. Hakenberg

P. Mahoney
Registrar

President
The text of the present decision and the texts of the decisions of the Courts of the European Union cited in it are available
on the internet site www.curia.europa.eu
*
Language of the case: French.