Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2002:250
Date: 2002-10-17
Language of the case: French
Court formation: Fifth Chamber
Based on: Merger Treaty (1965)
Subject matter: Staff regulations and employment conditions - EC
Concepts: Organization of departments;Equal treatment and non-discrimination;Specific cases;Recruitment;Choice of procedure;Ex post regularisation of an inadequate statement of reasons;Duty to have regard for the interests of officials
Procedure: Staff cases - unfounded;Action for damages - unfounded

SUMMARY — JOINED CASES T-330/00 AND T-114/01 
in Case T-114/01, first, annulment of the 
appointment decisions taken by the authority 
empowered to conclude contracts in connection 
with the recruitment procedures initiated by 
vacancy notices COM/R/5530/00 and 
COM/R/5500/00 and, second, compensation for 
the harm allegedly suffered by the applicants. 
Held: The applications are dismissed. The parties are ordered to 
bear their own costs. 
Summary 
1. Officials - Recruitment - Vacant post - Post which may be filled by either an 
official or a member of the temporary staff - Priority for the official -
Appointment of an official who satisfies the requirements in the vacancy notice -
Principle of non-discrimination - Breach - None 
(Staff Regulations, Art. 29(1)) 
2. Officials - Decision adversely affecting an official - Rejection of a candidature 
- Obligation to state grounds at the latest at the stage of rejection of the complaint 
(Staff Regulations, Art. 25, second para.) 
3. Officials - Organisation of the service - Assignment of staff - Discretion of the 
appointing authority - Interests of the service - Review by the Court - Limits 
(Staff Regulations, Art. 7) 
I-A - 194 
COCCHI AND HAINZ v COMMISSION 
4. Officials - Temporary staff - Recruitment - Limitation of the period of the 
contract below the maximum permitted and exclusion of renewal - Lawfulness 
(Conditions of Employment of Other Servants, Art. 8) 
5. Officials - Administration's duty to have regard for the interests of officials -
Scope 
1. Where a post covered by a vacancy notice may be filled by the appointment of 
an official or by the engagement of a member of the temporary staff falling within 
the scope of Article 2(d) of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants, the 
Commission may legitimately, pursuant to Article 29(1) of the Staff Regulations, 
give priority consideration to applications for promotion or transfer submitted by 
officials of the institution and decide to appoint one of them after verifying that he 
or she satisfied the requirements set out in the vacancy notice in question, without 
being obliged to consider the candidatures of members of the temporary staff at the 
same time as those of those officials or, a fortiori, to engage one of the members 
of the temporary staff if he or she also satisfies the requirements set out in the 
vacancy notice. 
First, the fact that, notwithstanding the priority falling to officials under Article 29 
of the Staff Regulations, the appointing authority is not obliged to appoint an official 
following consideration of the candidatures for promotion or transfer does not mean 
that it is necessarily obliged, in any event, to extend its consideration to other types 
of candidatures and to appoint a candidate other than a qualified official who 
satisfies the requirements set out in the vacancy notice. In that regard, it is not 
under an obligation, but merely has an option, the exercise of which falls within the 
scope of its wide discretion. Secondly, the act of applying a distinction as between 
the candidatures of officials and those of members of the temporary staff cannot 
constitute discrimination. Since priority falls to officials, there is a fundamental 
I-A - 195 
SUMMARY — JOINED CASES T-330/00 AND T-114/01 
difference between those two types of candidatures and they cannot therefore be 
treated in an identical manner. 
(see paras 33, 40, 45, 52) 
See: T-100/92 La Pietra v Commission [1994] ECR-SC I-A-83 and II-275, para. 50; 
T-372/00 Campolargo v Commission [2002] ECR-SC I-A-49 and II-223, para. 90 
2. The requirement that a decision adversely affecting a person should state the 
grounds on which it is based is intended, firstly, to provide the person concerned 
with details sufficient to allow him to ascertain whether the decision is well founded 
and, secondly, to enable the Court to review its legality. Where a decision rejects 
a candidature for a post declared vacant, the appointing authority is required to 
provide a statement of the grounds, at least at the stage of rejection of the complaint 
against such a decision. 
(see para. 55) 
See: 195/80 Michel v Parliament [1981] ECR 2861, para. 22; 69/83 Lux v Court of 
Auditors [1984] ECR 2447, para. 36; T-1/90 Pérez-Mínguez Casariego v Commission 
[1991] ECR II-143, para. 73; T-52/90 Volger v Parliament [1992] ECR II-121, para. 36; 
T-25/92 Vela Palacios v ESC [1993] ECR II-201, para. 22; T-13/95 Kyrpitsis v ESC 
[1996] ECR-SC I-A-167 and II-503, paras 67 and 68 
3. Under Article 7 of the Staff Regulations, the appointing authority must choose 
the official to be assigned to a vacant post, following a vacancy notice, solely in the 
interests of the service. In making such a decision, the appointing authority has a 
wide discretion in assessing the interests of the service, the abilities of the 
candidates to be taken into consideration and the suitability of the candidates for the 
post in question. In that regard, the Court's review is limited to consideration of the 
question whether, having regard to the considerations which influenced the 
administration in making its assessment, the latter remained within reasonable 
bounds and did not use its power in a manifestly incorrect way. Such a review does 
I-A - 196 
COCCHI AND HAINZ v COMMISSION 
not mean that the Court substitutes its own assessment for that of the appointing 
authority. 
Provided that the official selected to fill a vacant post satisfied the required 
conditions, it is pointless for a member of the temporary staff who submitted an 
admissible candidature to claim that he or she was better qualified to fill the post in 
question. 
(see paras 66-69) 
See· 233/85 Bonino v Commission [19871 ECR 739. para. 5; T-82/91 Latham v 
Commission [19941 ECR-SC I-A-15 and II-61. para. 62; T-143/98 Cendrowicz v 
Commission [19991 ECR-SC I-A-273 and II-1341, para. 61 
4. Article 8 of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants confers a wide 
discretion on the administration as regards the duration and renewable nature of the 
contracts of temporary staff. Consequently, pursuant to that article, the 
administration may legitimately limit the contract of a member of the temporary 
staff engaged under Article 2(d) of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants 
to an initial two-year period with the possibility of extension by one year, without 
being bound to renew that contract subsequently. 
(see paras 82-84) 
5. The duty of the administration to have regard for the interests of its officials 
reflects the balance of the reciprocal rights and obligations established by the Staff 
Regulations in the relationship between the official authority and the civil servants. 
A particular consequence of this duty is that when the official authority takes a 
decision concerning the situation of an official it should take into consideration all 
I-A - 197 
SUMMARY - JOINED CASES T-330/00 AND T-114/01 
the factors which may affect its decision and that when doing so it should take into 
account not only the interests of the service but also the interests of the official 
concerned. 
(see para. 69) 
See: 321/85 Schwiering v Court of Auditors [1986] ECR 3199, para. 18; T-207/95 Ibarra 
Gil v Commission [1997] ECR-SC I-A-13 and II-31, para. 75 
I-A - 198