Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2000:272
Date: 2000-11-21
Based on: Merger Treaty (1965)
Subject matter: Staff regulations and employment conditions - EC
Concepts: Prior administrative complaint;Conduct of competitions;Access to internal competitions;Application form
Procedure: Staff cases - unfounded

SUMMARY — CASE T-214/99 
Summary 
1. Officials - Actions - Prior administrative complaint - Requirement that 
subject-matter and grounds be the same - Pleas in law and arguments not 
appearing in the complaint - Matter considered in detail by the appointing 
authority in the decision rejecting the complaint - Admissible 
(Staff Regulations, Arts 90 and 91) 
2. Officials - Competitions - Internal competitions - Competition for the purpose 
of establishment - Conditions of admission - Ten years ' service as member of staff 
subject to conditions of employment of other servants - Whether permissible 
(Staff Regulations, Art. 27, first para; and 29(1)) 
3. Officials - Competitions - Competition based on qualifications and tests -
Conditions of admission - Definition in notice of competition - Assessment by the 
selection board of the professional experience of the candidates - Judicial review 
— Limits 
(Staff Regulations, Annex III, Art. 2) 
4. Officials - Competitions - Competition based on qualifications and tests -
Conditions of admission - Supporting documents - Request by selection board for 
additional information - Merely optional - No obligation to request submission of 
all documents required 
(Staff Regulations, Annex III, Art. 2, second para.) 
5. Officials - Competitions - Competition based on qualifications and tests -
Refusal to admit to tests - Statement of reasons - Obligation - Scope 
(Staff Regulations, Art. 25, second para; Annex III, Art. 5) 
I-A - 258 
CARRASCO BENÍTEZ v COMMISSION 
1. 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. 
Once the defendant institution has made observations on the matter in the course of 
the administrative procedure, it can no longer be considered that the failure to 
mention the matter in the complaint has undermined the principles of legal certainty 
and observance of the rights of the defence underlying the rule of consistency 
between the administrative complaint and the action. 
(see paras 37-38) 
See: T-78/96 and T-170/96 W v Commission [1998] ECR-SC I-A-239 and II-745, para. 
66 
2. The wide discretion which the Staff Regulations confer on the institutions as 
regards the organisation of competitions must be compatible with the mandatory 
requirements of the first paragraph of Article 27 of the Staff Regulations according 
to which the aim ascribed to the recruitment procedure is to secure for the 
institution the services of officials of the highest standard of ability, efficiency and 
integrity, and of Article 29(1) of those Regulations. The choice to be made in the 
exercise of the wide power conferred on the appointing authority in that regard 
must, therefore, always be governed by the requirements of the post to be filled 
and, more generally, the interests of the service. 
I-A - 259 
SUMMARY — CASE T-214/99 
In requiring ten years' service with the European Communities as a condition of 
admission to a competition intended to lead to the establishment of temporary staff 
in grades A 8 and A 3, the Commission exercised its discretion in a manner 
compatible with the interests of the service. Having a certain length of service, and 
thus significant experience within the Community institutions, constitutes a clear 
indication of the possession of the qualities required by the first paragraph of 
Article 27 of the Staff Regulations. Given the nature of the posts to be filled, which 
all involve high level administrative and advisory duties, the Commission also 
respected the limits of a reasonable exercise of its discretion. 
(see paras 52-56) 
See: T-56/89 Bataille and Others v Parliament [1990] ECR II-597, para. 42; T-40/96 and 
T-55/96 de Kerros and Kohn-Bergé v Commission [1997] ECR-SC I-A-47 and II-135, 
para. 39; T-294/97 Carrasco Benítez v Commission [1998] ECR-SC I-A-601 and II-1819, 
paras 41 and 43, and the case-law cited therein 
3. It is for the selection board in a competition based on qualifications and tests to 
assess in each case whether the certificates produced or the experience of each 
candidate correspond to the level required by the Staff Regulations and by the notice 
of competition. It enjoys a discretion when assessing the previous experience of 
candidates both as regards the nature and duration thereof and as regards their 
relevance to the post to be filled. 
In its review of legality the Court of First Instance must confine itself to ascertaining 
whether the selection board's decisions were free from manifest errors of 
assessment. 
(see paras 69-71) 
I-A - 260 
CARRASCO BENÍTEZ v COMMISSION 
See: T-115/89 González Holguera v Parliament [1990] ECR II-831, para. 54; T-2/90 
Ferreira de Freitas v Commission [1991] ECR II-103, para. 56; T-158/89 Van Hecken 
v ESC [1991] ECR II-1341, para. 23, and the case-law cited therein; T-101/96 Wolf \ 
Commission [1997] ECR-SC I-A-351 and II-949, paras 64 and 68; T-244/97 Menens v 
Commission [1999] ECR-SC I-A-23 and II-91, para. 44 
4. A selection board is obliged to take into account only the documents which the 
candidates submitted to assess their professional experience in the light of the 
requirements laid down by the notice of competition. It is under no obligation to ask 
candidates to produce additional documents or to undertake research itself in order 
to ascertain whether the candidate meets all the conditions of the notice of 
competition. 
In that regard, it is clear from the second paragraph of Article 2 of Annex III to the 
Staff Regulations that it merely enables a selection board to request additional 
information from candidates if it is in doubt as to the exact significance of a 
document submitted, and there can be no question of transforming into an obligation 
that which the Community legislature viewed as a mere possibility open to the 
selection board in a competition. 
(see paras 77-78) 
See; C-255/90 P Burban v Parliament [1992] ECR I-2253, paras 16 and 20; T-54/91 
Almeida Antunes v Parliament [1992] ECR 11-1739, para. 40; T-215/97 Jouhki v 
Commission [1998] ECR-SC I-A-503 and II-1513, para. 58 
I-A - 261 
SUMMARY — CASE T-214/99 
5. The duty to state the grounds for each decision adversely affecting an official is 
intended both to provide the person concerned with sufficient details to allow him 
to ascertain whether or not the decision is well founded and to enable the Court to 
review the legality of the decision. Such an obligation must, inter alia, enable the 
official concerned to know why a decision was adopted in his regard in order that 
he may take the legal steps necessary to defend his rights and interests. With respect 
to the decision of a selection board not to admit a candidate to the tests, the 
selection board is required to indicate precisely which conditions in the notice of 
competition are considered not to have been satisfied by the candidate. 
(see paras 172-173) 
See: 69/83 Lux v Court of Justice [1984] ECR 2447, para. 36; Burban v Parliament, 
cited above, para. 43; González Holguera v Parliament, cited above, paras 42 and 43, 
and the case-law cited therein; Almeida Antunes v Parliament, cited above, para. 32 
I-A - 262