Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2016:30
Date: 2016-01-27
Language of the case: Spanish
Court formation: Appeals Chamber
Based on: Merger Treaty (1965)
Subject matter: Staff regulations and employment conditions - EC
Procedure: Appeal - unfounded;Staff cases

Summary 1. Officials — Recruitment — Competitions — Competition based on qualifications and tests — University diploma or degree required — Meaning of ‘diploma or degree’ — Determination on the basis of the legislation of the Member State in which the studies took place (Staff Regulations, Annexe III, Art. 5) 2. Officials — Principles — Protection of legitimate expectations — Assurances of a selection board not complying with the applicable rules — Situation exempt from legitimate expectation as regards the possibility of inclusion on the reserve list 1. In the absence of any provision to the contrary contained either in a regulation or a directive applicable to recruitment competitions or in the notice of competition, the requirement of possession of a university diploma on which admission to an open competition depends is necessarily to be construed in the light of the definition of such a diploma given in the legislation of the Member State in which the candidate completed the studies on which he relies. The university diploma which a candidate must possess in order to take part in an open competition must be fully recognised under the legislation of the Member State in which it was awarded. Such references to the legislation of the Member State in which the diploma was awarded, in the absence of a contrary provision, ensure equal treatment in competition procedures which may be entered by candidates whose university studies have taken place in different countries and at institutions whose systems of teaching also differ greatly as regards their organisation, structure, methods and content. This makes it possible to assess in an equal manner those who, having obtained a diploma the actual value of which is certified by the official nature afforded it by the State, are essentially in the same situation both from the point of view of the facts and from the legal point of view. Furthermore, such references guarantee the persons concerned the highest level of certainty, enabling them to know in advance and with sufficient assurance whether their university diploma will or will not be regarded as valid for admission to the European civil service. (see paras 26-28, 33) See: Judgment of 13 July 1989 in Jaenicke Cendoya v Commission, 108/88, ECR, EU:C:1989:325, para. 17 Judgment of 9 December 1999 in Alonso Morales v Commission, T‑299/97, ECR-SC, EU:T:1999:314, para. 60 2. Three conditions must be satisfied in order to claim entitlement to the protection of legitimate expectations. First, precise, unconditional and consistent assurances originating from authorised and reliable sources must have been given to the person concerned by the EU authorities. Second, those assurances must be such as to give rise to a legitimate expectation on the part of the person to whom they are addressed. Third, the assurances given must comply with the applicable rules. A note from a selection board in a competition based on qualifications and tests assuring a candidate that he satisfies all the admission conditions laid down in the competition notice may not be regarded as raising legitimate expectations in the mind of that candidate where such assurances are inconsistent with the applicable rules because the candidate’s diploma does not meet the requirements of that notice. (see paras 43, 45) See: Judgments of 21 July 1998 in Mellett v Court of Justice, T‑66/96 and T‑221/97, ECR-SC, EU:T:1998:187, para. 107, and of 16 March 2005 in Ricci v Commission, T‑329/03, ECR-SC, EU:T:2005:103, para. 79