Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2001:121
Date: 2001-04-24
Language of the case: French
Court formation: Fourth Chamber
Based on: Merger Treaty (1965)
Subject matter: Staff regulations and employment conditions - EC
Concepts: Obligations of the Selection Board;General
Procedure: Staff cases - unfounded;Staff cases - decision unnecessary

SUMMARY - CASE T-159/98 
Summary 
1. Officials — Actions — Interest in bringing proceedings — Appraisal at the time 
when the action is brought - Subsequent disappearance of the interest in bringing 
proceedings — Case not proceeding to judgment 
(Staff Regulations, Arts 90 and 91) 
2. Officials - Competitions — Duty of the Community institutions to all candidates 
to ensure that tests are conducted in an impartial and regular manner - Breach -
Effect on the legality of tests — Conditions — Burden of proof 
1. A legal interest in bringing an proceedings, which is an essential condition for 
the admissibility of the action, is to be appraised at the time when the action is 
brought. However, for an official to be able to bring an action for annulment 
against a decision of the appointing authority, he must retain a personal interest in 
the annulment of the contested decision. In that regard, in the absence of a present 
interest in bringing proceedings, there is no further need to adjudicate on the action. 
(see paras 28, 30-31) 
See: 14/63 Forges de Clabecq v High Authority [1963] ECR 357; T-112/94 Moat v 
Commission [1995] ECR-SCI-A-37 and II-135, para. 26; T-6/96 Contargyris v Council 
[1997] ECR-SC I-A-119 and II-357, para. 32; T-97/94/N v Commission [1998] ECR-SC 
I-A-621 and II-1879, para. 23; T-112/96 and T-115/96 Séché v Commission [1999] 
ECR-SC I-A-115 and II-623, para. 37 
I-A - 84 
TORRE AND OTHERS v COMMISSION 
2. Under the principles of sound administration and equal treatment, the Community 
institutions have a duty to all candidates in a competition to ensure that the tests are 
conducted in as impartial and regular a manner as possible. To that end, the 
administration is obliged to ensure that the competition is properly organised and, 
in particular, that the material given out to the candidates is carefully prepared. 
However, an irregularity which occurs during the course of the tests in a 
competition affects the legality of those tests only if it is of a substantive nature such 
as to distort the results of the tests. Where such an irregularity occurs, it is for the 
defendant institution to prove that it did not affect the results of the tests. 
(see paras 46-47) 
See: T-200/97 Jimenez v OHIM [1999] ECR-SC I-A-19 and II-73, para. 55; T-102/98 
Papadeas v Committee of the Regions [1999] ECR-SC I-A-211 and II-1091, para. 68 
I-A - 85