Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2003:12
Date: 2003-01-23
Language of the case: French
Court formation: Fifth Chamber
Based on: Merger Treaty (1965)
Subject matter: Staff regulations and employment conditions - EC
Concepts: Equal treatment and non-discrimination;Obligations of the Selection Board;Organisation and content of tests;Specific cases;Access to internal competitions;Assessment of candidates’ abilities;Relationship with specific rights of access;Conditions for success and drawing up of the list of successful candidates
Procedure: Staff cases - unfounded

SUMMARY - CASE T-53/00 
Summary 
1. Officials - Competitions - Arrangements for and content of the tests -
Organisation of a second series of tests for candidates originally unlawfully 
eliminated and having contested that elimination - Breach of the principle of equal 
treatment - None 
2. Officials - Recruitment - Competitions - Internal competitions - Right of all 
staff employed by the institution to take part 
(Staff Regulations, Art. 27) 
3. Officials - Competitions — Decision not to include a candidate on the list of 
suitable candidates - Obligation to state reasons - Principle of transparency -
Scope with regard to the requirement that the proceedings of the selection board 
should be secret 
(Art. 255 EC; Staff Regulations, Art. 25; Annex III, Art. 6) 
4. Officials — Competitions — Assessment of candidates - Discretion of the 
Selection board - Judicial review - Limits 
(Staff Regulations, Annex III) 
5. Officials — Competitions - Selection board - Drawing up the list of suitable 
candidates - Number of candidates to be included - Precedence of admission rules 
set out in the notice of competition 
(Staff Regulations, Art. 27; Annex III, Art. 5, para. 5) 
1. In a situation where certain candidates in a competition have been unlawfully 
excluded from taking part in the written tests for that competition, but where that 
unlawfulness only became apparent once the tests had taken place, there is no 
breach of the principle of equal treatment or of the prohibition of discrimination if 
the appointing authority organises a second series of written tests with different 
I-A - 14 
ANGIOLI v COMMISSION 
questions from those asked in the first series, which is open only to those candidates 
who were unlawfully eliminated and who used the means of appeal available within 
the time-limits laid down in the Staff Regulations. In doing so it does not breach any 
provision of the Staff Regulations and is acting in compliance with the principle of 
procedural economy in order to do its best to restore the rights of those concerned, 
while duly complying with the principles of legal certainty and sound administration. 
(see paras 30-36) 
See: T-294/97 Carrasco Benítez v Commission [19981 ECR-SC I-A-601 and II-1819 
2. In order to meet the aim ascribed by Article 27 of the Staff Regulations to any 
recruitment procedure, which is to secure for the institution the services of officials 
of the highest standard of ability, efficiency and integrity, it is necessary to recruit 
officials on the broadest possible basis. The expression 'competition internal to the 
institution' should therefore be taken to mean any persons employed by the 
institution, in whatever capacity, without any need to distinguish between them 
according to the section of the budget by which their post is covered. 
(see paras 50-52) 
See: 16/64 Rauch v Commission of the EEC [1965] ECR 135; 265/81 Giannini v 
Commission [19821 ECR 3865, para. 7: T-56/89 Bataille and Others v Parliament [1990] 
ECR II-597. para. 41 
3. The obligation to state the reasons on which decisions of a selection board in a 
competition are based 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. 
I-A- 15 
SUMMARY — CASE T-53/00 
Even if it is accepted that, in special situations, officials and members of the 
temporary staff may, like any other European citizen, invoke Article 255 EC or the 
principle of transparency asserted in the Code of Conduct concerning public access 
to Council and Commission Documents in order to gain access to the appointing 
authority's documents, that Article 6, which specifically relates to the candidate's 
access to the proceedings of the selection board, 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. 
Therefore, because, at the stage of the examination of the candidates' suitability, the 
proceedings of the selection board are primarily comparative in character and are 
thus secret, communication of the marks obtained by the candidate concerned in the 
various tests must be regarded as constituting an adequate statement of reasons for 
the decision not to include that candidate on the list of suitable candidates. Such a 
statement of reasons is not prejudicial to the rights of the unsuccessful candidates 
and it enables the Community judicature to carry out a judicial review appropriate 
for that type of dispute. 
(see paras 68-70, 84) 
See: 112/73, 144/73 and 145/73 Campogrande and Others v Commission [1974] ECR 
957, para. 53; 89/79 Bonu v Council [1980] ECR 553, para. 5; C-254/95 P Parliament 
v Innamorati [1996] ECR I-3423, paras. 24, 31 and 32; T-17/90, T-28/91 and T-17/92 
Cámara Alloisio and Others v Commission [1993] ECR II-841, para. 90; T-46/93 
Michaël-Chiou v Commission [1994] ECR-SC I-A-297 and II-929, para. 48; T-291/94 
Pimley-Smith v Commission [1995] ECR-SC I-A-209 and II-637, para. 63; T-153/95 Kaps 
v Court of Justice [1996] ECR-SC I-A-233 and II-663, para. 38; T-167/99 and T-174/99 
Giuliettiand Others v Commission [2001] ECR-SC I-A-93 and II-441, para. 81 
4. A selection board's assessment of candidates' knowledge and ability, which is of 
a comparative nature, and its decision that a candidate has failed a test constitute a 
value judgment on the candidate's performance in the test. They therefore fall within 
I-A - 16 
ANGIOLI v COMMISSION 
the wide margin of discretion accorded to the board, and the Community judicature 
has no jurisdiction to review it unless the rules which govern the proceedings of the 
selection board have been infringed. 
(see para. 91) 
See: Campograndeand Others v Commission, cited above, para. 53; Camara Alloisio and 
Others v Commission, cited above, para. 90; Michaël-Chiou v Commission, cited above, 
para. 48; Pimley-Smith v Commission, cited above, para. 63; Kaps v Court of Justice. 
cited above, para. 38 
5. The fifth paragraph of Article 5 of Annex III to the Staff Regulations, which 
provides that the list of suitable candidates is wherever possible to contain at least 
twice as many names as the number of posts to be filled, must be construed as 
merely containing a recommendation to the selection board, intended to facilitate the 
appointing authority's decisions. That provision is therefore not capable of 
authorising the board to disregard the rules set out in the notice of competition. It 
may therefore not include on the list of suitable candidates those who have not 
obtained the minimum marks required by that notice. In including such candidates 
on the list, the board would not fulfil the aim which Article 27 of the Staff 
Regulations ascribes to any recruitment procedure, which is to secure for the 
institution the services of officials of the highest standard of ability, efficiency and 
integrity, nor would it satisfy the interests of the service and the principle of sound 
administration and good management. 
(see paras 103. 105-107) 
See: 122/77 Agneessens and Others v Commission [1978] ECR 2085, para. 22: Bataille 
and Others v Parliament, cited above, para. 48: Michaël-Chiou v Commission, cited 
above, para. 82; T-40/96 and T-55/96 de Kerros and Kohn-Bergé v Commission [1997] 
ECR-SC I-A-47 and II-135. para. 40; T-159/95 Dricot and Others v Commission [1997] 
ECR-SC I-A-385 and II-1035. para. 67; T-166/95 Karagiozopoulou v Commission [1997] 
ECR-SC I-A-397 and II-1065. para. 55 
I - A - 17