Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2003:254
Date: 2003-09-30
Based on: Merger Treaty (1965)
Subject matter: Provisions governing the Institutions;Staff regulations and employment conditions - EC;Access to documents
Concepts: Conditions of admissibility;Conduct of competitions;Effect of the outcome of the action for annulment;Measures of inquiry and measures of organisation of procedure
Procedure: Action for damages - successful;Staff cases - decision unnecessary

SUMMARY - CASE T-214/02 
Held: That there is no need to rule on the application for 
annulment of the letter of 31 May 2002 in so far as it 
rejects the request for access to documents. The 
Parliament is ordered to pay the applicant EUR 1 by way 
of damages for non-material damage. The remainder of the 
application is dismissed. The Parliament is ordered to bear 
its own costs and to pay half of the costs incurred by the 
applicant. The applicant is ordered to bear one half of her 
own costs. 
Summary 
1. Procedure - Measures of organisation of procedure - Request for the 
production of documents - Presumption that a document does not exist based on 
assertion to that effect by the defending institution - Presumption which may be 
rebutted 
2. Officials - Competitions - Competition based on qualifications and tests — 
Content of the tests - Discretion of the Selection Board - Judicial review - Limits 
3. Officials - Competitions - Selection Board - Observance of the secrecy of the 
Board's proceedings - Scope - Criteria for marking - Inclusion 
(Staff Regulations, Annex III, Art. 6) 
4. Officials - Actions - Claim for compensation related to a claim for annulment 
— Inadmissibility of claim for annulment resulting in inadmissibility of claim for 
compensation 
(Staff Regulations, Arts 90 and 91) 
5. Officials - Non-contractual liability of the institutions - Conditions -
Unlawfulness - Damage - Causal link 
I-A - 230 
MARTINEZ \ ALLS v PARLIAMENT 
6. Officials - Non-contractual liability of the institutions - Unlawful refusal to 
communicate a document which has constrained the official to bring an action -
Communication during the proceedings allowing non-material damage to persist -
A ward of monetary damages 
1. Where the institution concerned asserts that a particular document to which the 
applicant seeks access by way of a measure of organisation of the procedure does 
not exist, there is a presumption that it does not. That, however, is a simple 
presumption that the applicant may rebut in any way by relevant and consistent 
evidence. 
(see para. 21) 
See: T-123/99 JT's Corporation v Commission [2000] ECR II-3269. para. 58; T-311/00 
British American Tobacco (Investments) v Commission [20021 ECR II-2781. para. 35 
2. The Selection Board in a competition has a wide discretion with regard to the 
detailed content of the tests which form part of that competition. It is not for the 
Community court to criticise that content unless it is not confined within the limits 
laid down in the competition notice or is not consistent with the purposes of the test 
or of the competition. 
(see para. 35) 
See: 64/86. 71/86 to 73/86 and 78/86 Sergio v Commission [1988] ECR 1399. para. 22; 
T-153/95 Kaps v Court of Justice [1996] ECR-SC I-A-233 and II-663. para. 37 
I-A - 231 
SUMMARY - CASE T-214/02 
3. The criteria for marking form an integral part of the comparative assessments 
which the Selection Board makes of the candidates' respective merits. They are 
designed to guarantee, in the candidates' own interests, a certain consistency in the 
Board's assessments. Those criteria are therefore covered by the secrecy of the 
Board's proceedings. 
(see para. 37) 
See: C-254/95 P Parliament v Innamorati [1996] ECR I-3423, para. 29 
4. A claim for compensation by officials must be rejected where it is closely related 
to a claim for annulment which has itself been rejected either as inadmissible or as 
unfounded. 
(see para. 43) 
See: T-273/94 N v Commission [1997] ECR-SC I-A-97 and II-289, para. 159 and the 
case-law cited 
5. In an application for damages brought by an official, the Community can be held 
liable only if a number of conditions are satisfied as regards the illegality of the 
allegedly wrongful act, the actual harm suffered and the existence of a causal link 
between the act and the damage alleged to have been suffered. 
(see para. 65) 
See: 111/86 Delauche v Commission [1987] ECR 5345, para. 30; T-140/97 Hantem v 
EIB [1999] ECR-SC I-A-171 and II-897, para. 83 
I-A - 232 
MARTINEZ VALLS v PARLIAMENT 
6. Where an institution, contrary to its own rules, has not communicated upon 
request to a candidate who has failed the written tests in a competition his test script 
together with the corresponding answer key card drawn up by the Selection Board 
and the marks obtained, thereby committing a wrongful act likely to render it liable, 
and where, as a result of this lack of due care which constrained him to bring an 
action in order to gain access to the documents in question, the person concerned 
has suffered non-material damage which the communication of the documents during 
the written procedure has not entirely rectified, the institution concerned may be 
held liable and the person concerned entitled to compensation. 
(see paras 66-68) 
I-A - 233