Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2003:237
Date: 2003-09-18
Based on: Merger Treaty (1965)
Subject matter: Staff regulations and employment conditions - EC
Concepts: General;Vacancy notice
Procedure: Staff cases - successful

SUMMARY — CASE T-73/01 
Summary 
1. Officials - Members of the temporary staff - Recruitment - Consideration of 
comparative merits - Staff in Grade A 1 or A 2 - Discretion of the authority 
authorised to conclude contracts of engagement - Limits - Respect for the 
conditions set by the recruitment notice and for the procedural rules adopted for the 
exercise of discretion 
2. Officials - Members of the temporary staff — Recruitment — Consideration of 
comparative merits - Setting up by the authority authorised to conclude contracts 
of engagement of an advisory body not provided for in the relevant documents -
Opinion included in the criteria considered when making a selection 
1. The authority authorised to conclude contracts of engagement has a very broad 
discretion when comparing the merits of the candidates, in particular where the post 
to be filled is at a very high level, corresponding to Grade A 1 or A 2. The exercise 
of that broad discretion presupposes at the very least scrupulous observance of the 
relevant regulations, in other words not just of the recruitment notice, but also of 
any procedural rules which the authority has adopted for the exercise of its 
discretion. 
The recruitment notice constitutes a legal framework which the authority authorised 
to conclude contracts of engagement imposes on itself and to which it must adhere 
strictly. Likewise, a recruitment procedure agreed by an ad hoc committee set up 
by the authority authorised to conclude contracts of engagement with the task of 
examining the documents relating to the recruitment procedure, and approved, at 
I-A - 208 
DE ATHANASSIOS PAPPAS v COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS 
least tacitly, by that authority, forms part of the legal framework to which the 
authority is required to adhere strictly in the exercise of its broad discretion. 
(see paras 52-56) 
See: C-35/92 P Parliament v Frederiksen [1993] ECR I-991, paras 15 and 16; T-586/93 
Kotzonis v ESC [1995] ECR II-665, para. 81; T-21/96 Giannini v Commission [1997] 
ECR-SC I-A-69 and II-211, para. 19; T-159/96 Wenk v Commission [1998] ECR-SC 
I-A-193 and II-593, para. 63; T-203/97 Forvass v Commission [1999] ECR-SC I-A-129 
and II-705, para. 45; T-143/98 Cendrowicz v Commission [1999] ECR-SC I-A-273 and 
II-1341, para. 39; T-351 /99 Brumter v Commission [2001] ECR-SC I-A-165 and H-757, 
para. 71; T-95/01 Coget and Others v Court of Auditors [2001] ECR-SC I-A-191 and 
II-879, para. 113; T-158/01 Tilgenkamp v Commission [2002] ECR-SC I-A-111 and 
II-595, paras 50 and 51 
2. Where the authority authorised to conclude contracts of engagement sets up an 
advisory committee not provided for by the relevant rules in order to obtain an 
opinion, for the purpose of recruitment for a particular post, of the abilities and 
aptitudes of the various candidates, having regard to the qualifications required, and 
in order to have a better basis for carrying out the comparative examination of the 
merits of the candidates, the opinion of that committee forms part of the information 
on the strength of which the institution or Community body bases its own 
assessment of the candidates. 
(see para. 60) 
See: 44/85, 77/85, 294/85 and 295/85 Hochbaum and Rawes v Commission [1987] ECR 
3259, para. 16; T-25/90 Schönherr v ESC [1992] ECR II-63, para. 27; T-60/94 Pierrat 
v Court of Justice [1995] ECR-SC I-A-23 and II-77, paras 35 to 37 
I-A - 209