Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2002:295
Date: 2002-12-05
Language of the case: Dutch
Court formation: Fourth Chamber
Based on: Merger Treaty (1965)
Subject matter: Staff regulations and employment conditions - EC
Concepts: Effects of a judgment annulling a measure;Selection Board
Procedure: Staff cases - unfounded

SUMMARY - CASET-119/99 
Summary 
1. Officials - Actions - Judgment annulling a measure - Effects - Obligation to 
adopt measures to implement it - Scope - Account taken both of the grounds and 
of the operative part of the judgment - Annulment of a competition selection 
board's decision not to include a candidate on the list of suitable candidates -
Reopening of the competition only so far as concerns the applicant - Appropriate 
method of implementation 
(Art. 233 EC) 
2. Officials - Competitions - Selection board - Composition - Work of the 
selection board spread over a long period - Replacement of certain of its members 
if necessary 
(Staff Regulations, Annex III, Art. 3) 
3. Officials - Competitions - Selection board - Composition - Qualifications 
required of members - Competition for interpreters 
(Staff Regulations, Annex III, Art. 3) 
1. It is for the institution from which an act annulled by the Community judicature 
originates to determine what measures are required to implement the judgment, 
since the Community judicature cannot order it to adopt specific measures. In order 
to comply with the judgment and to implement it fully, that institution is required 
to have regard not only to the operative part of the judgment but also to the grounds 
which led to the judgment and constitute its essential basis, in so far as they are 
necessary to determine the exact meaning of what is stated in the operative part. It 
is those grounds which, on the one hand, identify the precise provision held to be 
illegal and, on the other, indicate the specific reasons which underlie the finding of 
illegality contained in the operative part and which the institution concerned must 
take into account when replacing the annulled measure. 
I-A - 240 
HOYER v COMMISSION 
Consequently, where, after finding irregularities in the conduct of a competition 
held for the purpose of constituting a reserve for future recruitment, the Community 
judicature has annulled only the selection board's decision not to include the 
applicant on the list of suitable candidates and has stated in the grounds of its 
judgment that it is for the institution concerned to seek a just solution in the case of 
the applicant without there being any need to call in question the results of the 
competition as a whole, it must be held that the rights of the applicant are 
appropriately safeguarded if the competition is reopened with regard to him. 
(see paras 35-38) 
See: 225/82 Verzyck v Commission [19831 ECR 1991, para. 19; 144/82 Detti v Court of 
Justice [1983] ECR 2421, para. 33; 97/86, 193/86. 99/86 and 215/86 Asteris and Others 
v Commission [1988] ECR 2181, para. 27; C-242/90 P Commission v Albamand Others 
[19931 ECR I-3839. paras 13 and 14; T-32/89 and T-39/90 Marcopoulos v Court of 
Justice [1990] ECR II-281, para. 44; T-156/89 Valverde Mordt v Court of Justice [1991] 
ECR II-407, para. 150; T-17/90, T-28/91 and T-17/92 Camara Alloisio and Others v 
Commission [1993] ECR II-841, para. 79; T-27/92 Camera-Lampitelli and Others v 
Commission [1993] ECR II-873, paras 43 and 44; T-43/91 Hoyer v Commission [1994] 
ECR-SC I-A-91 and II-297; T-106/92 Frederiksen v Parliament [1995] ECR-SC I-A-29 
and II-99, para. 31 ; T-91/95 De Nil and Unpens v Council [1996] ECR-SC I-A-327 and 
II-959. para. 34 
2. The work of a selection board in a competition must take place in such a way as 
to ensure the proper operation of recruitment for the Community civil service. If its 
work extends over a long period, even several years, in particular where one of its 
decisions is annulled by the Community judicature, it is possible that its composition 
may evolve over the years, as a result of events beyond the control of the 
administration. Where the latter finds it impossible to reconstitute identically the 
selection board as originally composed, it is recognised, for the purposes of 
ensuring the continuity of the Community civil service, as having the power to 
replace certain members of the selection board, while in so doing maintaining a 
situation which is as close as possible to the original situation. 
(see para. 67) 
I-A - 241 
SUMMARY - CASE T-119/99 
See: Cámara Alloisio and Others v Commission, cited above, para. 81 
3. In order to be constituted in accordance with the provisions of the Staff 
Regulations and Article 3 of Annex III thereto, the selection board in a competition 
must be composed in such a way as to guarantee an objective assessment of the 
candidates' professional qualities in their performance in the tests. However, the 
requirements which the abilities of its members must satisfy vary depending on the 
particular circumstances of each competition. 
In the case of a competition for interpreters, a command of languages is a 
fundamental requirement and the selection board must be composed accordingly. It 
follows that, for such a competition, it is imperative that at least one member 
entitled to vote should have a command both of the language into which the 
candidate in the competition works and of the actual practice of his profession as an 
interpreter. 
(see paras 74-75) 
See: Marcopoulos v Court of Justice, cited above, paras 37 and 40; Valverde Mordi v 
Court of Justice, cited above, para. 106; T-166/95 Karagiozopoulouv Commission [1997] 
ECR-SC I-A-397 and II-1065, paras 34 and 35; T-160/99 Svantesson and Others v 
Council [2001] ECR-SC I-A-175 and II-799, para. 32 
I-A - 242