Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2002:239
Date: 2002-10-03
Based on: Merger Treaty (1965)
Subject matter: Staff regulations and employment conditions - EC
Concepts: Inter-institutional transfer
Procedure: Staff cases - unfounded

SUMMARY - CASE T-6/02 
Summary 
Officials - Recruitment - Appointment in grade - Appointment at the higher 
grade of the career bracket - Appointing authority's discretion - Account taken 
of the interests of the service and of the professional experience of the person 
concerned - Review by the Court - Limits 
(Staff Regulations, Art. 91) 
Although, at the time of appointment of a newly recruited official, the appointing 
authority is not, as a general rule, required either to examine in each case whether 
it is necessary to apply Article 31(2) of the Staff Regulations or to state the reasons 
for a decision not to make use of that provision, it is, on the other hand, required, 
in the presence of special circumstances, to make a specific assessment of the 
possible application of that provision. That may be the case where the specific needs 
of the service are such that the official to be recruited has to be particularly well 
qualified or where the person recruited has exceptional qualifications and requests 
the application of that provision. 
Such qualifications must be assessed, not by comparison with the population as a 
whole, but in relation to the average level of qualification of successful candidates 
in competitions, who represent a group of people who are already very rigorously 
selected in accordance with the requirements of Article 27 of the Staff Regulations. 
Particular professional experience or specific academic qualifications cannot confer 
on the person possessing them a right to appointment at the higher grade of the 
career bracket concerned. 
I-A - 190 
PLATTE v COMMISSION 
In the light of the great diversity of the types of practical experience evidenced by 
candidates applying for posts as officials, the appointing authority enjoys a wide 
discretion within the framework of Article 31 of the Staff Regulations and the 
internal decisions implementing that provision when assessing the previous 
experience of a candidate recruited as an official, both as regards the nature and 
duration thereof and as regards the extent of its relevance to the requirement of the 
post to be filled. In those circumstances, the Court's review cannot replace the 
appointing authority's assessment. It must be limited to verifying that there has been 
no infringement of essential procedural requirements, that the appointing authority 
has not based its decision on incorrect or incomplete material facts and that the 
decision is not vitiated by misuse of powers, error of law or inadequate statement 
of the reasons on which it is based. 
(see paras 31-33. 35-36, 38) 
See: T-17/95 Alexopoulou v Commission [1995] ECR-SC I-A-227 and II-683. paras 20 
and 21: T-92/96 Monaco v Parliament [1997] ECR-SC I-A-195 and II-573, para. 45; 
T-12/97 Barnett v Commission [1997] ECR-SC I-A-313 and II-863. para. 50; T-195/96 
Alexopoulou v Commission [1998] ECR-SC I-A-51 and II-117, para. 39 
I-A - 191