Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2000:194
Date: 2000-07-14
Language of the case: Portuguese
Court formation: Fourth Chamber
Based on: Merger Treaty (1965)
Subject matter: Staff regulations and employment conditions - EC
Concepts: Conditions for admission;Purpose;Organisation and content of tests;Assessment of candidates’ abilities
Procedure: Staff cases - unfounded
Origin: Belgium

SUMMARY — CASE T-146/99 
Summary 
1. Officials - Competitions - Competition notice - Purpose - Conditions for 
admission - Read in the light of the description of the duties relating to the post to 
be filled - Knowledge described as 'desirable' - Preferential criterion 
(Staff Regulations, Annex III, Art. 1) 
2. Officials - Competitions - Arrangements for and content of the tests -
Discretion of the selection board - Judicial review - Limits 
(Staff Regulations, Annex III) 
3. Officials - Competitions - Assessment of candidates' abilities - Discretion of 
the selection board - Judicial review - Limits 
(Staff Regulations, Annex III) 
1. In view of the purpose of competition notices, which is to inform those 
interested, as accurately as possible, of the conditions which must be fulfilled in 
order to occupy the post concerned, it is necessary to interpret the conditions for 
admission in the light of the aims of the competition in issue, as they result from the 
description of the duties relating to the post to be filled. Consequently, the part 
concerning the nature of the duties and that concerning the conditions for admission 
must be considered together. The fact that a competition notice provides that certain 
knowledge is merely desirable means that it is neither a mandatory requirement nor 
an optional condition but a preferential criterion. 
(see paras 34 and 36) 
See: T-21/96 Giannini v Commission [1997] ECR-SC I-A-69 and II-211, para. 21, and 
the case-law cited 
I-A - 160 
TEIXEIRA NEVES v COURT OF JUSTICE 
2. 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. The Court may 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. Nor 
may the Court review the detailed content of a test unless it is not confined within 
the limits laid down in the competition notice or is not consonant with the purposes 
of the test or 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. 
(see paras 37 and 56) 
See: 268/80 Guglielmi v Parliament [1981] ECR 2295, para. 8; Case T-132/89 Gallone 
v Council [1990] ECR II-549, para. 27, and the case-law cited 
3. The assessments made by a selection board in a competition when examining the 
candidates' knowledge and abilities are comparative by nature. Those assessments 
are the expression of value judgments as to the candidate's performance in the test 
and fall within the selection board's wide discretion. The Community judicature has 
no jurisdiction to review those decisions unless the rules which govern the 
proceedings of selection boards have been obviously infringed. The selection board, 
in assessing the candidates' professional knowledge and their abilities and 
motivation, is bound to base its decisions exclusively and autonomously on the 
candidates' performances alone, in accordance with the requirements of the notice 
of competition. 
I-A - 161 
SUMMARY - CASET-146/99 
It follows that the selection board must ascertain that the candidates have the 
knowledge and experience necessary for the duties relating to the post to be filled 
in each of the fields mentioned in the competition notice. It must also carry out a 
comparative examination of the knowledge and skills of the candidates so as to 
select the best in relation to the duties to be carried out. 
(see paras 41 and 42) 
See: T-170/95 Carrer v Court of Justice [1996] ECR-SCI-A-363 and II-1071, paras 49 
and 50; Case T-71/96 Berlingieri Vinzek v Commission [1997] ECR-SC I-A-339 and 
II-921, para. 48 
I-A - 162