Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2000:191
Date: 2000-07-13
Language of the case: French
Court formation: Fifth Chamber
Based on: Merger Treaty (1965)
Subject matter: Staff regulations and employment conditions - EC
Concepts: Administrative complaint;Purpose;Concept
Procedure: Staff cases - unfounded;Staff cases - inadmissible;Staff cases - successful

SUMMARY - CASE T-87/99 
Held: Application inadmissible in so far as it concerns the decision not to 
renew the applicant's contract as a member of the temporary staff 
beyond 30 June 1998. Contested decision annulled in so far as it 
rejects the application submitted by the applicant for the post of 
Head of Administration. Remainder of the application dismissed. 
Cedefop ordered to bear its own costs and to pay half of the costs 
of the applicant. Applicant ordered to bear half of his own costs. 
Summary 
1. Officials - Actions - Act adversely affecting an official — Definition - Act 
directly and immediately affecting the legal situation of the person concerned 
(Staff Regulations, Art. 91) 
2. Officials - Actions - Prior administrative complaint - Rejection decision taken 
by an authority with no competence to do so - Defect not entailing annulment of 
the decision which is the subject of the complaint 
(Staff Regulations, Art. 91) 
3. Officials - Vacancy notice - Subject - Consideration of the comparative merits 
of the candidates - Discretion of the administration - Limits - Plea alleging that 
the notice was irregular — Irregularity entailing annulment of the appointment 
decision — Conditions 
(Staff Regulations, Art. 45(1)) 
I-A - 148 
HENDRICKX v CEDEFOP 
1. Only measures producing binding legal effects of such a kind as to affect the 
applicant's interests directly and immediately by bringing about a distinct change in 
his position constitute acts or decisions against which an action for annulment may 
be brought. 
(see para. 37) 
See: T-17/90. T-28/91, T-28/91 and T-17/92 Camara Alloisio and Others v Commission 
[1993] ECR II-841, para. 39; Case T-562/93 Obst v Commission [1995] ECR-SC I-A-247 
and II-737. para. 23 
2. The mere fact that a decision rejecting a complaint is adopted by an authority not 
competent to do so is not such as to entail the annulment of the decision which was 
the subject of the complaint. 
(para. 53) 
3. The function of the vacancy notice is, first, to give those interested the most 
accurate information possible as to the conditions of eligibility for the post to enable 
them to decide whether they should apply for it and, second, to set the legal 
framework within which the institution will undertake a comparison of the 
candidates' merits under Article 45(1) of the Staff Regulations. 
I-A - 149 
SUMMARY - CASE T-87/99 
For a plea in law alleging that a vacancy notice is irregular to entail the annulment 
of the decision rejecting an application following an oral test, it must be shown that 
in the absence of such irregularity the contested decision might have been 
substantively different. 
(see paras 63 and 64) 
See: 150/84 Bernardi v Parliament [1986] ECR 1375, para. 28; Case T-64/94 Benecos 
v Commission [1995] ECR-SC I-A-257 and II-769, para. 80; Case T-356/94 Vecchi v 
Commission [1996] ECR-SC I-A-437 and II-1251, para. 50; Case T-3/97 Campogrande 
v Commission [1998] ECR-SC I-A-89 and II-215, para. 101; Case T-212/97 Hubert v 
Commission [1999] ECR-SC I-A-41 and II-185, para. 53 
I-A - 150