Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2000:212
Date: 2000-09-20
Language of the case: Italian
Court formation: Fourth Chamber
Based on: Merger Treaty (1965)
Subject matter: Staff regulations and employment conditions - EC
Concepts: General;Change of category or service;Action brought by an unsuccessful candidate;Internal directives;Scientific and technical staff
Procedure: Staff cases - unfounded;Staff cases - inadmissible

SUMMARY — CASE T-261/97 
Summary 
1. Officials - Scientific and technical services - Transfer from Category B to 
Category A - Discretion of the administration as to the choice of procedure 
applicable — Internal directive 
(Staff Regulations, Arts 45(2) and 98, second para.) 
2. Officials - Actions - Interestin bringing proceedings - Filling of a vacant post 
- Obligation to show eligibility to fill the post 
(Staff Regulations, Art. 91) 
3. Officials - Actions - Interest in bringing proceedings - Plea alleging breach 
of essential procedural requirements — No scope for the exercise of discretion on 
the part of the administration - Plea inadmissible 
(Staff Regulations, Art. 91) 
1. While the appointing authority may decide to transfer officials in the scientific 
and technical services to a higher category without using the competition procedure, 
there is nothing to prevent it from implementing such a procedure or from initiating 
a sui generis procedure, resembling a competition but differing from it on a number 
of points. 
While the procedural arrangements adopted by the Commission with a view to 
putting in place a system allowing it to assess the capacity of Category B officials 
and temporary agents in the scientific and technical services to perform Category 
A duties may not be regarded as rules of law which the administration is always 
bound to observe, they form rules of practice from which the administration may 
I-A - 182 
ORTHMANN v COMMISSION 
not depart in a particular case without giving reasons which are compatible with the 
principle of equal treatment. 
(see paras 23 to 25) 
See: 80/81,81/81, 82/81,83/81 Adam and Others v Commission [1984] ECR 3411, para. 
22; 181/86, 182/86, 183/86, 184/86 Del Plato and Others v Commission [1987] ECR 
4991, para. 14 
2. In order to show a personal interest in contesting a decision taken by the 
appointing authority in a procedure for filling a vacant post, applicants must show 
that they were eligible for the post in question. 
(see para. 32) 
See: T-35/96 Rasmussen v Commission [1997] ECR-SC I-A-61 and II-187, para. 78 
3. An official has no legitimate interest in the annulment of a decision for breach 
of procedure where the administration has no scope for the exercise of its discretion 
but is bound to act as it has done. In such circumstances, annulment of the 
contested decision could only give rise to adoption of a decision identical as to 
substance to the decision annulled. 
(see para. 33) 
See: T-43/90 Diaz Garcia v Parliament [1992] ECR II-2619, para. 54 
I-A - 183