Judgment — ECLI:EU:F:2013:51
Date: 2013-04-24
Language of the case: English
Court formation: First Chamber
Based on: Merger Treaty (1965)
Subject matter: Staff regulations and employment conditions - EC
Procedure: Staff cases - unfounded;Staff cases - inadmissible;Action for damages - unfounded

Summary Officials — Competitions — Assessment of candidates’ abilities — Questions asked during the oral test — Selection board’s discretion — Judicial review — Limits (Staff Regulations, Arts 90 and 91; Annex III) The assessments made by a selection board in a competition when it evaluates the knowledge and abilities of candidates and also the decisions whereby the selection board determines that a candidate has failed a test constitute the expression of a value judgment. They fall within the wide discretion enjoyed by the competition selection board and are amenable to review by the European Union judicature only where there has been a flagrant breach of the rules governing the work of the competition selection board. In addition, the competition selection board is required to ascertain whether the candidates possess the knowledge and the professional experience necessary to perform the duties of the post advertised in the notice of competition. It is also required to make a comparative examination of the candidates’ knowledge and abilities so as to retain those most suited to the duties to be carried out. As regards, in particular, the oral tests in a competition, the selection board’s discretion is further widened by the freedom and uncertainty characterising this type of test, which is, by its very nature, less standardised than the written test and the content of which may vary depending on the experience and personality of the different candidates and on the answers they give to the selection board’s questions. It follows that the selection board does not exceed the bounds of its wide discretion, having regard to the limited time of an oral test, in restricting the time an applicant is allowed to prepare his answer and in asking him to give a spontaneous response. (see paras 38-39, 60-61) See: 23 March 2000, T‑95/98 Gogos v Commission, para. 36; 14 July 2000, T‑146/99 Texeira Neves v Court of Justice, para. 42; 7 February 2002, T‑193/00 Felix v Commission, para. 36; 5 April 2005, T‑336/02 Christensen v Commission, para. 25; 14 July 2005, T‑371/03 Le Voci v Council, para. 102