Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2002:180
Date: 2002-07-09
Based on: Merger Treaty (1965)
Subject matter: Staff regulations and employment conditions - EC
Concepts: Vacancy notice
Procedure: Staff cases - successful

SUMMARY - CASE T-158/01 
Summary 
1. Officials — Vacant post — Filling by promotion or transfer — Consideration of 
the comparative merits of candidates - Grade A 1 or A 2 posts - Administration's 
discretion — Limits — Compliance with the conditions laid down in the vacancy 
notice — Judicial review — Scope 
(Staff Regulations, Arts 7 and 29(1)) 
2. Officials — Vacancy notice — Purpose — Filling by promotion or transfer — 
Consideration of the comparative merits of candidates - Cumulative nature of the 
conditions laid down in the vacancy notice 
(Staff Regulations, Art. 29(1)) 
1. The appointing authority has a broad discretion, in particular where the post to 
be filled is in Grade A 1 or A 2, when comparing the merits of the candidates for 
such a post. However, the exercise of that broad discretion presupposes a 
meticulous examination of the candidates' files and scrupulous observance of the 
requirements set out in the vacancy notice, so that that authority is required to reject 
any candidate who does not meet those requirements. The vacancy notice constitutes 
a legal framework which the appointing authority imposes on itself and to which it 
must adhere strictly. 
For the purpose of verifying that the appointing authority has not acted outside the 
scope of the vacancy notice and has thus acted solely in the interest of the service 
within the meaning of Article 7 of the Staff Regulations, the Court must first 
acquaint itself with the conditions laid down for filling the vacant post and then 
verify whether the candidate chosen by that authority to occupy that post did indeed 
satisfy those conditions. 
I-A- 112 
TILGENKAMP v COMMISSION 
Such a review does not mean that the Court is substituting its own assessment of the 
candidates' respective qualifications for that of the appointing authority. It must 
confine itself to the question whether, having regard to the considerations which 
may have influenced the administration in making its assessment, the latter remained 
within reasonable bounds and did not use its power in a manifestly incorrect way. 
The appointing authority's assessment cannot be called in question unless there is 
a manifest error. 
(see paras 50-53) 
See: C-35/92 P Parliament v Frederiksen [1993] ECR I-991, paras 15, 16 and 17; 
T-20/89 Moritz v Commission [1990] ECR II-769, para. 29; T-586/93 Kotzonis v ESC 
[1995] ECR II-665, para. 81; T-21/96 Giannini v Commission [1997] ECR-SC I-A-69 
and II-211, paras 19 and 20; T-159/96 Wenk v Commission [1998] ECR-SC I-A-193 
and II-593, paras 63 and 64; T-203/97 Forvass v Commission [1999] ECR-SC l-A-129 
and II-705, para. 45; T-143/98 Cendrowicz v Commission [1999] ECR-SC I-A-273 
and II-1341, paras 39 and 40; T-351/99 Brumter v Commission [2001] ECR-SC 
I-A-165 and II-757, paras 71 and 72; T-95/01 Coget and Others v Court of Auditors 
[2001] ECR-SC I-A-191 and II-879, para. 113 
2. The purpose of a vacancy notice is to inform those interested, as accurately as 
possible, of the conditions to be met by candidates for the post declared vacant and 
to establish the legal framework within which the institution intends to consider the 
comparative merits of the candidates. 
Both the general conditions indicated in the summary of vacancy notices, under the 
heading 'minimum qualifications required for transfer/promotion', and the specific 
conditions indicated in relation to the post concerned constitute the conditions laid 
down in the vacancy notice. Those various specific conditions must be read 
cumulatively, so that failure to comply with any one of them must necessarily lead 
I-A- 113 
SUMMARY - CASE T-158/01 
to the conclusion that the candidature concerned does not satisfy the criteria adopted 
for the post to be filled. 
(see paras 54, 58) 
See: T-58/91 Booss and Fischer v Commission [1993] ECR II-147, para. 68; T-356/94 
Vecchi v Commission [1996] ECR-SC I-A-437 and II-1251, paras 50 to 58; Giannini v 
Commission, cited above, para. 21; T-152/00 E v Commission [2001] ECR-SC I-A-179 
and II-813, para. 30, and the case-law cited therein 
I-A- 114