Judgment — ECLI:EU:F:2016:171
Date: 2016-07-21
Language of the case: French
Court formation: First Chamber
Based on: Merger Treaty (1965)
Subject matter: Staff regulations and employment conditions - EC
Procedure: Staff cases - unfounded

Summary 1. Officials — Certification procedure — Consideration of comparative merits — Administration's discretion — Judicial review — Limits (Staff Regulations, Art. 45a) 2. Officials — Certification procedure — Pre-selection of candidates — Criteria — Discretion of the institutions — Account taken of whether the candidate had undertaken a course of at least a year attested by a diploma recognised by a Member State — No discrimination (Staff Regulations, Art. 45a) 1. In view of the administration’s broad discretion in assessing and comparing the merits of candidates in any selection procedure, and particularly the certification procedure provided for in Article 45a of the Staff Regulations, the Tribunal’s review in this area must be confined to 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 or for purposes other than those for which that power was conferred on it. The Tribunal cannot therefore substitute its assessment of the merits and qualifications of the candidates for that of the administration where there is nothing in the file to suggest that, in assessing those merits and qualifications, the administration committed a manifest error. Furthermore, the appointing authority, while it has a broad discretion in selecting candidates, must adhere to the call for applications as it was published. (see paras 22, 23) See: Judgment of 4 February 1987 in Bouteiller v Commission 324/85, EU:C:1987:59, para. 6 Judgments of 11 July 2006 in Tas v Commission, F‑12/05, EU:F:2006:68, para. 43; 6 May 2009 in Campos Valls v Council, F‑39/07, EU:F:2009:45, para. 43; 25 February 2010, in Pleijte v Commission, F‑91/08, EU:F:2010:13, para. 61, and 2 December 2014 in Migliore v Commission, F‑110/13, EU:F:2014:257, para. 90 2. There is a breach of the principle of equal treatment, which is applicable to the law of the European Union civil service, where two categories of persons whose factual and legal situations are not essentially different are treated differently and such a difference in treatment is not objectively justified. In that regard, differences in treatment which are justified on the basis of objective and reasonable criteria and which are proportionate to the aim pursued by the differential treatment in question do not constitute a breach of the principle of equal treatment. In this case, having regard to the fact that the person concerned had not undertaken a course of at least one year offered by a university establishment or professional association and attested by a diploma recognised by a Member State, and was not therefore awarded any points under this heading of the scoring grid contained in the call for applications, he is in a different factual situation from a candidate who can demonstrate that he has taken such a course. Accordingly, the appointing authority did not infringe the principle of equal treatment. (see paras 26-28) See: Judgment of 22 December 2008 in Centeno Mediavilla and Others v Commission, C‑443/07 P, EU:C:2008:767, para. 76 Judgment of 16 March 2004 in Afari v ECB, T‑11/03, EU:T:2004:77, para. 65 Judgments of 23 January 2007 in Chassange v Commission,F‑43/05, EU:F:2007:14, para. 91, and 25 February 2010 in Pleijte v Commission, F‑91/08, EU:F:2010:13, para. 36