Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2002:12
Date: 2002-01-23
Language of the case: French
Court formation: Single Judge
Based on: Merger Treaty (1965)
Subject matter: Staff regulations and employment conditions - EC
Concepts: Conditions for admission;Specific cases of acts having adverse effect;Optional nature;Correspondence between the action and the complaint;Specific cases;Application form
Procedure: Staff cases - unfounded;Staff cases - inadmissible

SUMMARY - CASE T-386/00 
Summary 
1. Officials — Actions — Decision of a selection board in a competition — Prior 
complaint through official channels — Optional — Lodging of complaint — 
Consequences - Compliance with the procedural requirements associated with 
complaints through official channels 
(Staff Regulations, Arts 90 and 91) 
2. Officials — Actions — Act adversely affecting an official - Decision taken after 
re-examination of an earlier decision — Decision adopted by a competition selection 
board after re-examination of the files of candidates not admitted to the competition 
(Staff Regulations, Arts 90(2) and 91(1)) 
3. Officials — Actions — Prior complaint through official channels - Requirement 
that subject-matter and claims be the same — Pleas and arguments not appearing 
in the complaint — Matter considered in detail by the appointing authority in the 
decision rejecting the complaint — Admissibility 
(Staff Regulations, Arts 90 and 91) 
4. Officials - Competitions — Competition based on qualifications and tests -
Refusal of admission to tests — Statement of grounds — Obligation — Scope 
(Staff Regulations, Art. 25, second para.) 
5. Officials — Competitions — Competition based on qualifications and tests — 
Conditions of admission — Production of qualifications for the purpose of admission 
to the tests — Obligation on candidates as laid down in the notice of competition — 
Scope 
(Staff Regulations, Annex III, Art. 5) 
I-A - 14 
GONÇALVES v PARLIAMENT 
6. Officials — Competitions — Competition based on qualifications and tests -
Conditions of admission - Supporting documents — Request by selection board for 
additional information - Merely optional - Obligation to request production of all 
documents required — None 
(Staff Regulations, Annex III, Art. 2, second para.) 
1. The legal remedy available against a decision of a competition selection board 
normally lies in a direct application to the Community judicature. A complaint 
directed through official channels against such a decision would appear to be 
pointless, since the institution concerned has no authority to annul or alter a decision 
of a competition selection board. 
Nevertheless, if, instead of bringing the matter directly before the Community 
judicature, the person concerned relies on the provisions of the Staff Regulations in 
order to refer the question to the appointing authority by means of a complaint 
through official channels, the admissibility of the action brought subsequently will 
depend on the compliance by the person concerned with all the procedural 
requirements associated with complaints through official channels. In particular, the 
claims submitted to the Court must have the same subject-matter as those set out in 
the complaint and the time-limits laid down by Articles 90 and 91 of the Staff 
Regulations must be observed. 
(see paras 34-35) 
See: 117/78 Orlandi v Commission [1979] ECR 1613, paras 8 to 10; 52/85 Riltoia and 
Others v Commission [1986] ECR 1555, para. 9; T-215/97 Jouhki v Commission [1998] 
ECR-SC I-A-503 and II-513, para. 22, and the case-law cited 
I-A - 15 
SUMMARY - CASE T-386/00 
2. When a party whose application for admission to a Community competition has 
been rejected seeks re-examination of that decision on the basis of a precise 
provision by which the administration is bound, it is the decision taken by the 
selection board after re-examination which must be regarded as the act adversely 
affecting him within the meaning of Article 90(2) or, as the case may be, 
Article 91(1) of the Staff Regulations. It is also that decision, taken after 
re-examination, which causes the periods for lodging a complaint and bringing an 
action to start to run, without there being any need to ascertain whether, in such a 
situation, that decision may be regarded as a purely confirmatory act. 
(see para. 39) 
See: T-95/00 and T-96/00 Zaur-Gora and Dubigh v Commission [2001] ECR-SC I-A-79 
and II-379, para. 28 
3. The claims submitted to the Court must have the same subject-matter as those set 
out in the complaint. However, since the pre-litigation procedure is an informal 
procedure and those involved at that stage are generally acting without the assistance 
of a lawyer, the administration must not interpret the complaints restrictively but 
should, on the contrary, consider them with an open mind. 
Where the appointing authority states its position regarding the legality of the 
rejection of the applicant's candidature and makes observations in that connection 
during the administrative procedure, the absence of formal claims in the complaint 
does not undermine the principles of legal certainty and observance of the rights of 
the defence underlying the rule of consistency between the administrative complaint 
and that action. 
(see paras 42, 45-46) 
See: T-4/96 S v Court of Justice [1997] ECR II-1125, para. 99; T-78/96 and T-170/96 
W. v Commission [1998] ECR-SC I-A-239 and II-745, para. 66; Jouhki v Commission, 
I-A - 16 
GONÇALVES v PARLIAMENT 
cited above, para. 31 ; T-214/99 Carrasco Benitez v Commission [2000] ECR-SCI-A-257 
and II-1169, para. 38 
4. The obligation to state the grounds for a 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 regard to him in order 
that he may take the legal steps necessary to defend his rights and interests. With 
respect, in particular, to decisions refusing admission to competition, the 
competition 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 61-62) 
See: 69/83 Lux v Court of Auditors [1984] ECR 2447, para. 36; T-133/89 Burbau v 
Parliament [1990] ECR II-245, para. 43; Carrasco Benitez v Commission, cited above, 
paras 172 and 173, and the case-law cited 
5. In order to ascertain whether the conditions of admission set out in the notice of 
competition have been satisfied, the selection board is entitled to take account only 
of the information provided by candidates in their application and of the documents 
which they are required to produce in support of it. A selection board cannot be 
required to make enquiries itself in order to ensure that candidates satisfy all the 
conditions laid down in the notice of competition. When clear provisions in a notice 
of competition lay down the unequivocal requirement that candidates attach to their 
application form all necessary supporting documents, a candidate's failure to comply 
with that obligation cannot enable or, a fortiori, oblige the selection board or the 
appointing authority to act contrary to that notice of competition. 
(see para. 74) 
I-A - 17 
SUMMARY — CASE T-386/00 
See: C-255/90 P Burban v Parliament [1992] ECR I-2253, para. 12; T-12/00 Crestai v 
Commission [2000] ECR-SC I-A-67 and II-289, para. 22; Zaur-Gora and Dubigh v 
Commission, cited above, para. 55 
6. The second paragraph of Article 2 of Annex III to the Staff Regulations 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 but can in no way be 
interpreted as imposing an obligation on the selection board to arrange for the 
submission to it of all the required documents. The selection board, which is bound 
by the terms of the notice of competition as published, is obliged to take into 
account only the supporting documents which the candidates are required to submit 
by the closing date for applications specified in that notice of competition. It is 
under no obligation, should the case arise, to ask the persons concerned to produce 
additional documents. Neither the duty to have regard to the interests of officials nor 
the principle of sound administration can transform into an obligation that which the 
legislature viewed as a mere possibility open to the selection board in a competition. 
(see paras 84-86) 
See: C-255/90 P Burban v Parliament, cited above, paras 16 and 20; T-54/91 Almeida 
Antunes v Parliament [1992] ECR II-1739, para. 40; Jouhki v Commission, cited above, 
para. 58; Carrasco Benítez v Commission, cited above, para. 78 
I-A - 18