Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2002:297
Date: 2002-12-05
Language of the case: Dutch
Court formation: Fourth Chamber
Based on: Merger Treaty (1965)
Subject matter: Staff regulations and employment conditions - EC
Concepts: Termination of contract
Procedure: Staff cases - unfounded

SUMMARY - CASE T-70/00 
Summary 
Officials - Temporary staff - Termination of the contract of indefinite duration of 
a member of the temporary staff - Administration 's discretion - Review by the 
Court - Limits — Decision to dismiss a member of the temporary staff based on his 
failure in a competition 
(Conditions of Employment of Other Servants, Art. 47(2)) 
It is clear from Article 47(2) of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants 
that the termination of temporary staff contracts of indefinite duration, for which no 
statement of grounds is required unless otherwise stipulated by a clause in the 
contract, is a matter within the discretion of the competent authority and it is 
therefore for the Court to declare a dismissal decision and the reasons underlying 
it unlawful only if the limits of that discretion were not observed. 
Although the ability of the candidates in an internal competition to carry out their 
duties does not, in itself, have any bearing on the manner in which the competition 
must be organised, that does not mean that, if he fails the competition, the fact that 
a candidate has similar duties in his capacity as a member of the temporary staff 
prevents the competent authority from taking account of that failure for the purpose 
of terminating the temporary staff contract of the candidate in question. If that is the 
reason for terminating a contract, the Court may review the merits of such a 
decision only if the existence of a manifest error as regards the non-inclusion of the 
person concerned on the list of successful candidates or as regards the lawfulness 
of the selection board's decision can be established or if it is apparent that there was 
a misuse of powers. 
(see paras 44, 47, 55) 
See: 181/87 Agazzi Léonard v Commission [1988] ECR 3823, para. 27; T-54/89 V. v 
Parliament [1990] ECR II-659, para. 48; T-45/90 Speybrouck v Parliament [1992] ECR 
I-A - 248 
HOYER v COMMISSION 
II-33, paras 90 and 93 to 95; T-51/91 Hoyer v Commission [1994] ECR-SC I-A-103 and 
II-341. paras 27. 36 and 37 
I-A - 249