Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2018:533
Date: 2018-09-12
Language of the case: French
Based on: Merger Treaty (1965)
Subject matter: Staff regulations and employment conditions - EC
Procedure: Staff cases - unfounded

Summary — Judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber), 12 September 2018 1. Officials — Competitions — Conditions for admission — Mandatory provisions of the first paragraph of Article 27 of the Staff Regulations — Conditions limiting the registration of candidates for a competition — Lawfulness — Conditions — Requirements linked to the interests of the service — Judicial review — Limits (Staff Regulations of Officials, Arts 27, first para. and 29(1)) 2. Officials — Competitions — Internal competitions to constitute a reserve list for the recruitment of assistants — Members of the contract staff — Condition of admission requiring length of service within an institution of at least 42 months — Condition coming within the broad discretion of the administration (Staff Regulations of Officials, Art. 27, first para.; Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Communities, Art. 82(7)) 3. Officials — Recruitment — Competitions internal to an institution — Extension of entitlement to participate to all agents and officials — No obligation 1. The institutions have a wide discretion in deciding upon the criteria of ability required for posts to be filled and specifying, on the basis of those criteria and in the interests of the service, the conditions and procedure for organising a competition. However, the exercise of the discretion enjoyed by the institutions with respect to the holding of competitions, in particular as regards setting the conditions for admission, must be compatible with the mandatory provisions of the first paragraph of Article 27 and of Article 29(1) of the Staff Regulations. The terms in which the first paragraph of Article 27 of the Staff Regulations defines the aim of any recruitment and in which Article 29(1) of the Staff Regulations lays down the framework of the procedures to be followed to fill vacant posts are mandatory. That power must therefore always be exercised in the light of the requirements of the positions to be filled and, more generally, the interests of the service. Specifically as regards conditions limiting the registration of candidates for a competition, although they are indeed liable to restrict the opportunity for institutions to recruit the best candidates for the purposes of the first paragraph of Article 27 of the Staff Regulations, it does not follow that any condition containing such a restriction is contrary to that article. The administration’s discretion in the organisation of competitions and, more generally, in the interests of the service, allows the institution to impose conditions which it considers to be appropriate and which, while restricting access of candidates to a competition, and thus, necessarily the number of candidates registered, do not, however, entail the risk of compromising the objective of ensuring the registration of candidates of the highest standard of ability, efficiency and integrity within the meaning of the first paragraph of Article 27 of the Staff Regulations. Therefore, only conditions limiting access of candidates to a competition that entail a risk of compromising the objective of ensuring the registration of candidates of the highest standard are held to be contrary to the first paragraph of Article 27 of the Staff Regulations. Moreover, in view of the institutions’ wide discretion in this field, review by the General Court of whether the institution has complied with the condition relating to the interests of the service must be confined to the question of whether the institution remained within reasonable and unimpeachable limits and did not manifestly misuse its discretion. (see paras 30-34) 2. Requiring a particular number of years’ service is an appropriate means of ensuring that officials possess the qualities laid down in the first paragraph of Article 27 of the Staff Regulations and, therefore, of safeguarding the interests of the service. Having a particular period of service and therefore meaningful experience within the EU institutions is in fact a ‘clear indication’ of the abovementioned qualities. Such a service requirement ensures that the persons admitted to the internal competition have been subject to the regime applicable to the administrative staff of the institutions, in particular the rules relating to staff reports and discipline, for a particular period and that they have demonstrated their abilities in that context. The recruitment procedure therefore secures for the institution the services of officials who have the highest standard of ability, efficiency and integrity, as assessed by the institutions themselves. An institution that decides, exceptionally, to hold an internal competition open to contract staff in Function Groups II to IV must comply with the threshold of three years’ service required under the first sentence of Article 82(7) of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants. That institution is nevertheless free, in view of its broad discretion and provided it complies with the mandatory provisions of the first paragraph of Article 27 and of Article 29(1) of the Staff Regulations, to fix conditions for certain posts or function groups that are more rigorous, requiring in particular that applicants have a longer period of service than the minimum provided for under the first sentence of Article 82(7) of those conditions. That being so, the Commission did not use its discretion in a manifestly wrong way by requiring as a service requirement in the competition notice a period of service only six months longer than the minimum period provided for under the first sentence of Article 82(7) of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants. In that respect, the requirement to have 42 months’ service is an appropriate means of achieving the dual objective pursued, that is to say, both to regularise the situation of a number of temporary and contract agents by making them permanent and to recruit staff who are not only highly skilled but immediately operational. (see paras 39-41, 49 and 52) 3. An obligation to admit everyone in the service of an institution to a competition internal to it would undermine the wide discretion afforded to it and the contract staff and officials of that institution cannot, therefore, have an absolute right to take part in a competition internal to it. (see para. 43)