Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2003:236
Date: 2003-09-17
Based on: Merger Treaty (1965)
Subject matter: Staff regulations and employment conditions - EC
Concepts: Conduct of competitions
Procedure: Staff cases - unfounded

SUMMARY — CASE T-233/02 
Summary 
1. Officials - Competitions - Selection board — Rejection of candidature -
Obligation to state reasons — Scope - Observance of the secrecy of the board's 
proceedings 
(Staff Regulations, Art. 25; Annex III, Art. 6) 
2. Officials - Competitions - Selection board - Observance of the secrecy of the 
board's proceedings - Scope - Criteria for marking - Included 
(Staff Regulations, Annex III, Art. 6) 
3. Officials - Competitions - Assessment of candidates ' abilities - Discretion of 
the selection board - Judicial review - Limits 
(Staff Regulations, Annex III) 
4. Officials - Competitions - Arrangements for and content of the tests -
Discretion of the selection board - Judicial review - Limits 
(Staff Regulations, Annex III) 
1. The requirement that a decision adversely affecting a person should state the 
reasons on which it is based is intended to provide the person concerned with 
sufficient details to allow him to ascertain whether or not the decision is well 
founded and make it possible for the decision to be the subject of judicial review. 
As far as concerns decisions taken by a selection board in a competition, the 
obligation to state reasons must be reconciled with observance of the secrecy 
surrounding the proceedings of selection boards by virtue of Article 6 of Annex III 
to the Staff Regulations. 
I-A - 202 
ALEXANDRATOS AND PANAGIOTOU v COUNCIL 
The task of a selection board involves as a rule at least two separate stages, the first 
being an examination of the applications in order to select the candidates admitted 
to the competition and the second being an examination of the abilities of the 
candidates for the posts to be filled in order to draw up a list of suitable candidates. 
The second stage of the selection board's proceedings involves tasks that are 
primarily comparative in character and is accordingly covered by the secrecy 
inherent in those proceedings. The comparative assessments made by the selection 
board are reflected in the marks it allocates to the candidates, which are the 
expression of the value judgments made concerning each of them. Therefore, having 
regard to the secrecy which must surround the proceedings of a selection board, 
communication of the marks obtained by each candidate in the various tests 
constitutes an adequate statement of the reasons on which the board's decisions are 
based. Such a statement of reasons is not prejudicial to the candidates' rights, 
inasmuch as it enables them to know the value set on their performance and to 
ascertain, if such is the case, that they have not in fact obtained the number of 
marks required by the notice of competition in order to be admitted to certain tests 
or to all the tests. 
(see paras 24-27) 
See: 44/71 Marcato v Commission [1972] ECR 427, paras 19 and 20; 37/72 Marcato v 
Commission [1973] ECR 361, paras 18 and 19; 31/75 Costacurta v Commission [1975] 
ECR 1563, paras 10 and 11; 195/80 Michel v Parliament [1981] ECR 2861, para. 22; 
C-254/95 P Parliament v Innamorati [1996] ECR I-3423, paras 24, 26, 31 and 32; 
C-156/98 Germany v Commission [2000] ECR I-6857, para. 96; T-157/96 Affatato v 
Commission [1998] ECR-SC I-A-41 and II-97, paras 34 and 35 
2. The criteria for marking adopted by the selection board prior to the tests form an 
integral part of the comparative assessments which it makes of the candidates' 
respective merits. Where the selection board decides not to admit candidates to the 
oral tests in a competition, compliance with the obligation to state reasons does not 
entail communicating to the candidates concerned the criteria used for marking or 
the marked scripts on which the selection board's assessments are noted, or 
supplying further information about the value judgments made by the selection board 
concerning each of them. The communication of the mark obtained by each 
candidate disputing his elimination constitutes an adequate statement of reasons for 
the selection board's decision not to admit him to the oral tests. This conclusion is 
I-A - 203 
SUMMARY - CASE T-233/02 
not affected by the fact that unsuccessful candidates can, in some circumstances, 
obtain from the institution organising the competition in question their marked 
scripts and/or the general marking criteria used by the selection board, either by 
means of the disclosure of documents during court proceedings between that 
institution and the candidates concerned, or under a practice adopted by the 
institution in order to ensure transparency in recruitment procedures while at the 
same time observing the secrecy of the selection board's proceedings as required 
under Article 6 of Annex III to the Staff Regulations. 
(see paras 30-31) 
See: Parliament v Innamorati, cited above, para. 29; T-289/94 Innamorati v Parliament 
[1995] ECR-SC I-A-123 and II-393 
3. A selection board's assessment of candidates' knowledge and ability is primarily 
of a comparative nature; such an assessment, which constitutes a value judgment on 
the candidate's performance in the test, falls within the wide margin of discretion 
accorded to the board and the Community judicature has no jurisdiction to review 
it unless the rules which govern the proceedings of the selection board have clearly 
been infringed. It follows that where, in an application for annulment of the decision 
of a selection board declaring that the applicant has failed a test, the applicant does 
not allege an infringement of those rules or has not proved any such infringement, 
the Court has no jurisdiction to review the selection board's assessment of the 
candidate's performance in that test. 
(see para. 50) 
See: T-17/90, T-28/91 and T-17/92 Cantara Alloisio and Others v Commission [1993] 
ECR II-841, para. 90; T-46/93 Michaël-Chou v Commission [1994] ECR-SC I-A-297 and 
II-929, para. 49; T-153/95 Kaps v Court of Justice [1996] ECR-SC I-A-233 and II-663, 
para. 49; T-146/99 Teixeira Neves v Court of Justice [2000] ECR-SC I-A-159 and II-731, 
para. 41; T-72/01 Pyres v Commission [2003] ECR-SC I-A-169 and II-861, para. 39 
I-A - 204 
ALEXANDRATOS AND PANAGIOTOU v COLNCIL 
4. The selection board has considerable discretion as regards the arrangements for 
and the detailed content of the tests provided for within the framework of a 
competition. It is likewise not for the Court to substitute its own judgment for that 
of the selection board as regards the degree of difficulty of the tests. The Court may 
therefore not review the arrangements for the conduct of a test except to the extent 
necessary to ensure that the candidates were treated equally and that the choice 
made from among them by the selection board was objective. 
(see para. 55) 
See: Teixeira Neves v Court of Justice. ciled above, para. 37; T-189/99 Gerochristos v 
Commission [2001] ECR-SC I-A-ll and II-53. para. 25 
I-A - 205