CELEX: 62005FJ0121
Public service
Officials
Open competition

1.
Officials – Actions – Interest in bringing proceedings
(Staff Regulations, Arts 90 and 91)
2.
Officials – Competitions – Organisation – Conditions for admission and arrangements
(Staff Regulations, Arts 25, 90 and 91; Annex III, Art. 7)
1.
A candidate in a competition for entry to the Community civil service has a separate and real interest in applying for annulment
of the selection board’s decision not to re-examine its initial decision not to admit him to the competition owing to his
inadequate professional experience, even though he has, in any event, been able to lodge a complaint and bring a challenge
before the courts against that initial decision not to admit him. The discretion which a selection board enjoys, when re-examining
its decisions, in assessing both the nature and duration of the previous professional experience of candidates and its relevance
to the post to be filled, is not comparable to the review conducted, in connection with a complaint, by the appointing authority,
which does not have the power to annul or amend decisions of the selection board, or to the judicial review carried out by
the Community judicature when a challenge is brought before the courts, since that review must be confined to determining
whether the selection board’s exercise of its discretion in assessing the professional experience of each candidate was not
manifestly incorrect.
The applicant must therefore be able to ask the Community judicature to review the lawfulness of the selection board’s decision
not to re-examine its decision not to admit him to the competition, taken on the ground that the request was out of time,
even though that judicature is, at the same time, reviewing the validity of the initial decision.
(see paras 29-30, 32-33)
See:
117/78
Orlandi
v
Commission
[1979] ECR 1613, para. 9; 52/85
Rihoux and Others
v
Commission
[1986] ECR 1555, para. 9
T-115/89
González Holguera
v
Parliament
[1990] ECR II‑831, para. 54; T-214/99
Carrasco Benítez
v
Commission
[2000] ECR‑SC I‑A‑257 and II‑1169, paras 70 and 71; T-386/00
Gonçalves
v
Parliament
[2002] ECR-SC I‑A‑13 and II‑55, para. 34; T-145/02
Petrich
v
Commission
[2004] ECR-SC I‑A‑101 and II‑447, para. 37
2.
Although it is true that the procedure for re-examining a decision taken by a selection board in a competition is not subject
to the provisions of Articles 90 and 91 of the Staff Regulations, the effectiveness of the request for re-examination and
the guarantee that candidates can use that legal remedy in accordance with the principle of equal treatment require not just
that the decision which is the subject of a request for re-examination must have been communicated to the addressee, but also
that the addressee must have been able to have effective knowledge of its content. The administration has an obligation to
ensure that candidates are effectively and easily able to acquaint themselves with decisions which are of individual concern
to them.
It is not contrary to Article 25 of the Staff Regulations, Article 7 of Annex III to the Staff Regulations, the competition
notice or the principle of equal treatment for the selection board in a competition organised by the European Personnel Selection
Office (EPSO) to decide to reject as out of time a request for re-examination of a decision not to admit a candidate, despite
the absence of proof that that candidate received the email informing him that the decision had been placed in his personal
file on the EPSO’s website, where, even if the competition notice did not give details of the arrangements for communicating
the selection board’s decisions, the information it contained, read together with its annex and the clear instructions given
on the EPSO website, prescribed that, first, the point from which time started to run for submitting a re-examination request
did not depend upon receipt of an email alert sent to the candidate’s email address, but was constituted by the placing of
a new document in his personal file on the EPSO website, and secondly, the candidate was required actively to monitor changes
to that file, which, contrary to his duty to exercise due care and attention, he did not do.
(see paras 61, 72, 80-81, 87-88)
See:
T-95/04
Lavagnoli
v
Commission
[2006] ECR-SC I-A-2-121 and II‑A‑2‑569, paras 45 and 48