Judgment — ECLI:EU:F:2013:191
Date: 2013-12-11
Language of the case: English
Court formation: Second Chamber
Based on: Merger Treaty (1965)
Subject matter: Staff regulations and employment conditions - EC
Procedure: Staff cases - unfounded;Staff cases - inadmissible

Summary 1. Acts of the institutions — Presumption of validity — Presence of evidence capable of calling into question the legality of the measure — Burden of proof (Art. 256 TFEU) 2. Officials — Competitions — Assessment of candidates’ abilities — Selection Board’s discretion — Taking into consideration factors other than the performance of the candidates — Not included (Staff Regulations, Annex III, Art. 5) 3. Officials — Competitions — Assessment of candidates’ abilities — Selection Board’s discretion — Consistency between the mark and the written assessments of the selection board — Judicial review — Limits (Staff Regulations, Annex III, Art. 5) 4. Officials — Decision adversely affecting an official — Obligation to state reasons — Scope — Inadequate statement of reasons — Rectification in the course of the judicial proceedings — Conditions (Art. 296 TFEU) 1. An administrative act is presumed to be lawful. The burden of proof lies, in principle, with the person claiming it to be unlawful, so that it is for the applicant to provide at the very least sufficiently precise, objective and consistent information to corroborate the truth or likelihood of the facts in support of his claims. (see para. 31) See: 4 February 2010, F‑15/08 Wiame v Commission, para. 21; 24 April 2013, F‑88/11 BX v Commission, para. 33, on appeal before the General Court of the European Union, Case T‑352/13 P 2. In its assessment of the candidates’ professional knowledge and of their abilities and motivation, a selection board must base its decision exclusively and independently on the candidates’ performance alone, in accordance with the requirements of the notice of competition. In that regard, in the event of candidates challenging the marks obtained in the oral test, the applicant’s belief that he correctly answered the questions asked, the fact that questions were asked during the oral test concerning performance of duties prior to the competition, or the satisfaction of the applicant’s hierarchical superiors with the performance of his duties prior to submitting his application, do not constitute irrefutable evidence of a manifest error of assessment. (see paras 35, 47) See: 14 July 2000, T‑146/99 Teixeira Neves v Court of Justice, para. 41 11 December 2012, F‑65/10 Mata Blanco v Commission, para. 97; 23 January 2013, F‑24/11 Katrakasas v Commission, para. 185 3. The consistency between the mark and the written assessments of the competition selection board, which guarantees the equal treatment of candidates, may be reviewed by the Civil Service Tribunal independently of review of the selection board’s assessment of the candidates’ performance, provided the review of consistency is limited to verifying the absence of manifest inconsistency. (see para. 52) See: 11 September 2008, F‑127/07 Coto Moreno v Commission, para. 34; 13 December 2012, F‑101/11 Mileva v Commission, para. 42 4. In relation to a decision of a competition selection board, it is possible, first, to compensate for an inadequate — but not a totally absent — statement of reasons even during the course of the proceedings where, before bringing his application, the person concerned already had information constituting the initial elements of a statement of reasons, and, secondly, to regard a decision as having an adequate statement of reasons if it was adopted in a context known to the official concerned, enabling him to understand its scope. (see para. 62) See: 2 March 2010, T‑248/08 P Doktor v Council, para. 93 and the case-law cited