Order — ECLI:EU:T:2003:224
Date: 2003-09-09
Based on: Merger Treaty (1965)
Subject matter: Staff regulations and employment conditions - EC
Concepts: Prior administrative complaint;Conduct of competitions
Procedure: Staff cases - unfounded;Staff cases - inadmissible

SUMMARY - CASE T-293/02 
Summary 
1. Officials - Competitions - Selection board - Rejection of candidature -
Obligation to state reasons — Scope - Observance of the secrecy of the board' s 
proceedings 
(Staff Regulations, Art. 25; Annex III, Art. 6) 
2. Officials - Actions - Prior administrative complaint - Requirement that 
subject-matter and grounds be the same - Pleas and arguments not appearing in 
the complaint but closely linked to it - Admissibility 
(Staff Regulations, Arts 90 and 91) 
3. Officials - Actions - Prior administrative complaint - Requirement that 
subject-matter and grounds be the same - Matter not appearing in the complaint 
but considered in detail in the decision rejecting the complaint - Admissibility of 
the arguments put forward in reply in the action 
(Staff Regulations, Arts 90 and 91) 
4. Officials - Competitions - Assessment of the abilities of candidates -
Assessment bound to be comparative 
(Staff Regulations, Annex III, Art. 5) 
5. Officials - Competitions - Selection board - Drawing up the list of suitable 
candidates - Inclusion of candidates who have not obtained the minimum marks 
specified in the notice of competition - Not permissible 
(Staff Regulations, Art. 27; Annex III, Art. 5, fifth subpara.) 
I-A - 188 
VRANCKX v COMMISSION 
1. The requirement that a decision adversely affecting a person should state the 
reasons on which it is based is intended to provide the person concerned with 
sufficient details to allow him to ascertain whether or not the decision is well 
founded and make it possible for the decision to be the subject of judicial review. 
As far as concerns decisions taken by a selection board in a competition, the 
obligation to state reasons must be reconciled with observance of the secrecy 
surrounding the proceedings of selection boards by virtue of Article 6 of Annex III 
to the Staff Regulations. That secrecy was introduced with a view to guaranteeing 
the independence of selection boards and the objectivity of their proceedings, by 
protecting them from all external interference and pressures, whether these come 
from the Community administration itself or the candidates concerned or third 
parties. Observance of this secrecy therefore precludes both disclosure of the 
attitudes adopted by individual members of selection boards and disclosure of any 
factors relating to individual or comparative assessments of candidates. 
When the abilities of candidates are assessed, the selection board's proceedings are 
primarily comparative in character and are accordingly covered by the secrecy 
inherent in those proceedings. Therefore, having regard to the secrecy which must 
surround the proceedings of a selection board, communication of the marks obtained 
in the various tests constitutes an adequate statement of the reasons on which the 
board's decisions are based. Such a statement of reasons is not prejudicial to the 
rights of the unsuccessful candidates and enables the Court of First Instance to carry 
out a judicial review appropriate for that type of dispute. 
(see paras 25-28) 
See: 89/79 Bonu v Council [1980] ECR 553. para. 5; 195/80 Michel v Parliament [1981 ] 
ECR 2861. para. 22: C-254/95 P Parliament v Innamorati [1996] ECR I-3423. paras 23, 
24. 28 and the case-law cited, and 32: T-167/99 and T-174/99 Giulietti and Others v 
Commission [2001] ECR-SC I-A-93 and II-441. para. 81 
I-A - 189 
SUMMARY - CASE T-293/02 
2. In actions brought by officials, the claims put before the Community judicature 
may only have the same subject-matter as those made in the complaint and may not 
contain heads of claim based on matters other than those relied on in the complaint. 
The submissions and arguments made to the Court in support of those heads of 
claim need not necessarily appear in the complaint, but must be closely linked to it. 
(see para. 41) 
See: 52/85 Rihoux and Others v Commission [1986] ECR 1555, para. 15; 242/85 Geist 
v Commission [1987] ECR 2181, para. 9 
3. Where, in a decision rejecting a complaint, the appointing authority states its 
position in great detail on a matter which was not raised in the complaint, the 
argument put forward by the official concerned on that matter in the action brought 
before the Community court following rejection of his complaint must be declared 
admissible. 
(see para. 50) 
See: T-214/99 Carrasco Benítez v Commission [2000] ECR-SC I-A-257 and II-1169, 
paras 37 and 38 
4. The purpose of any competition is to select the most suitable candidates for 
performing the tasks involved in the posts to be filled, and selection boards must, 
therefore, necessarily examine the respective merits of candidates and conduct the 
tests in such a way that only the most capable are selected. 
(see para. 53) 
I-A - 190 
VRANCKX v COMMISSION 
5. A selection board may not enter on the list of suitable candidates those who have 
not obtained the minimum marks required, since otherwise the notice of competition 
would be infringed. 
(see para. 58) 
See: T-53/00 Angioli v Commission [2003] ECR-SC I-A-13 and II-73. para. 105 
I - A - 191