Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2002:65
Date: 2002-03-13
Language of the case: French
Court formation: Second Chamber
Based on: Merger Treaty (1965)
Subject matter: Staff regulations and employment conditions - EC
Concepts: Conditions for admission;Purpose;Effects of a judgment annulling a measure
Procedure: Action for damages - unfounded;Staff cases - successful

SUMMARY - CASE T-139/00 
Summary 
1. Officials — Competitions — Competition based on qualifications and tests — 
Conditions of admission — Laid down in notice of competition — Assessment by the 
selection board of the professional experience of the candidates - Limits 
(Staff Regulations, Annex III, Art. 1) 
2. Officials - Competitions - Competition based on qualifications and tests -
Conditions of admission — Professional experience — Selection board's discretion 
— Judicial review — Scope 
(Staff Regulations, Annex III, Art. 2) 
3. Officials — Actions — Action for annulment and damages — Annulment of an 
irregular competition procedure - Interests to be taken into consideration — 
Annulment only of the decision rejecting the applicant's candidature — Sufficient 
reparation — Conditions 
(Staff Regulations, Art. 91) 
1. Notwithstanding its discretion with regard to the procedures for and content of 
the tests in a competition, the selection board is bound by the wording of the notice 
of competition as published. The tesic function of a notice of competition is to give 
those interested the most accurate information possible about the conditions of 
eligibility for the post, in order to enable them to judge, first, whether they should 
apply for it and, second, what supporting documents are important for the 
proceedings of the selection board and must therefore be enclosed with the 
application. 
I-A - 34 
BAL v COMMISSION 
With regard, in particular, to the conditions for admission to the competition 
relating to professional experience, the actual assessment of the level of that 
experience must take place within the framework established by the wording of the 
notice of competition and cannot in any way allow the selection board to add any 
condition which does not actually appear in the notice. 
(see paras 35-36) 
See: 225/87 Belardinelii v Court of Justice [1989] ECR 2353, para. 13; T-214/99 
Carrasco Beultet v Commission [2000] ECR-SCI-A-257 and II-1169, para. 69; T-95/00 
and T-96/00 Zaur-Gora and Dubigh v Commission [2001] ECR-SC I-A-79 and II-379, 
para. 47, and the case-law cited 
2. The selection board enjoys, in principle, a discretion when assessing the previous 
professional experience of candidates, both as regards its nature and duration and 
as regards its relevance to the post to be filled. In the light of that discretion, it is 
for the Community judicature to examine whether the selection board made a 
manifest error in assessing the duration and level of the professional experience of 
the candidates not admitted to the competition. 
(see para. 55) 
See: 9/76 Morello v Commission [1976] ECR 1415, paras 8 and 9; 417/85 Maurissen v 
Court of Auditors [1987] ECR 551, paras 14 and 15; Carrasco Benltez v Commission, 
cited above, para. 70 
3. When a competition procedure has been vitiated by an irregularity in respect of 
a particular candidate, it is necessary to take into account not only the interests of 
that candidate who was the victim of the unlawful act but also the interests of third 
parties whose legitimate expectations might be injured if the application for 
annulment of the competition procedure were granted. Where calling in question the 
entire results of the competition or annulling the appointments would constitute an 
excessive penalty for the irregularity, annulment of the decision rejecting that 
I-A - 35 
SUMMARY - CASE T-139/00 
candidate's candidature for admission to the competition will in itself constitute 
sufficient reparation. 
(see paras 68, 70) 
See: 24/79 Oberthürv Commission [1980] ECR 1743, paras 11 and 13; 67/81 Ruske v 
Commission [1982] ECR 661, para. 13; C-242/90 P Commission v Albani and Others 
[1993] ECR I-3839, paras 13 and 14; T-95/98 Gogos v Commission [2000] ECR-SC 
I-A-51 and II-219, para. 57 
I-A - 36