Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2002:190
Date: 2002-07-11
Language of the case: German
Court formation: Fifth Chamber
Based on: Merger Treaty (1965)
Subject matter: Staff regulations and employment conditions - EC
Concepts: Equal treatment and non-discrimination;Scope of judicial review;Grading;Principle of the protection of legitimate expectations;General
Procedure: Staff cases - unfounded;Staff cases - inadmissible

SUMMARY - CASE T-381/00 
Summary 
1. Officials — Actions — Purpose — Direction to the administration — Inadmissible 
(Art. 233 EC; Staff Regulations, Art. 91) 
2. Officials - Recruitment — Appointment in grade - Appointment to the higher 
grade of the career bracket — Appointing authority 's discretion — Obligation, in 
certain cases, to consider the possibility of making such an appointment — Review 
by the Court - Limits 
(Staff Regulations, Art. 31(2)) 
3. Officials — Recruitment — Appointment in grade — Appointment to the higher 
grade of the career bracket - Use for the recruitment of an exceptional candidate 
— Conditions — Existence of competing offers from other employers 
(Staff Regulations, Art. 31(2)) 
4. Officials — Recruitment — Appointment in grade — Appointment to the higher 
grade of the career bracket — Right to be appointed to the higher grade of the 
career bracket — None 
(Staff Regulations, Art. 31(2)) 
5. Community law — Principles - Protection of legitimate expectations -
Conditions 
6. Officials - Recruitment - Equal treatment 
(Staff Regulations, Art. 5(3)) 
7. Officials - Decision adversely affecting an official - Obligation to state grounds 
— Scope 
(Staff Regulations, Art. 25, second para.) 
I-A - 126 
WASMEIER v COMMISSION 
1. An application claiming that the Community Courts should require the defendant 
institution to adopt a new decision on the classification of an official is inadmissible. 
Firstly, the Community Courts have no jurisdiction to issue directions to the 
administration and, secondly, where an act is annulled, the institution concerned is 
required, under Article 233 EC, to take the necessary measures to comply with the 
judgment. 
(see paras 20, 21) 
See: T-203/97 Forvass v Commission [1999] ECR-SC I-A-129and II-705, para. 25, and 
the case-law cited 
2. Article 31(2) of the Staff Regulations provides for the possibility of making 
exceptions, within certain limits, to the principle laid down in Article 31(1). In that 
regard, when appointing a newly recruited official, the appointing authority is not, 
as a general rule, obliged to examine in each case whether it is necessary to apply 
Article 31(2) of the Staff Regulations or to state the grounds on which a decision not 
to make use of that provision is based. 
However, in order to prevent Article 31(2) of the Staff Regulations from being 
deprived of all legal meaning, the appointing authority is required, in special 
circumstances, specifically to assess the possible application of that provision. Such 
an obligation arises where the specific needs of the service require the recruitment 
of a specially qualified official or where the person recruited has exceptional 
qualifications and requests the application of that provision. Provided that it has in 
fact carried out that assessment, and subject to any classification conditions which 
it has imposed on itself in the vacancy notice, the appointing authority is free to 
decide, taking account of the interests of the service, whether it is appropriate to 
grant a classification at the higher grade. In that respect, the appointing authority 
has a discretion. 
I-A - 127 
SUMMARY — CASE T-381/00 
In those circumstances, the Court's review cannot replace the appointing authority's 
assessment. It must be limited to verifying that there has been no infringement of 
essential procedural requirements, that the appointing authority has not based its 
decision on incorrect or incomplete material facts and that the decision is not 
vitiated by misuse of powers, an error of law or an inadequate statement of grounds. 
(see paras 52-58) 
See: I-17/95 Alexopoulou v Commission [1995] ECR-SC I-A-227 and II-683, paras 20 
and 21; T-92/96 Monaco v Parliament [1997] ECR-SC I-A-195 and 11-573, para. 45; 
T-195/96 Alexopoulou v Commission [1998] ECR-SC I-A-51 and II-117, paras 38 and 39 
3. Article 31(2) of the Staff Regulations is intended, inter alia, to enable the 
institution concerned, in its capacity as an employer, to secure the services of a 
person who, in the context of the labour market, may well be sought after by many 
other potential employers and therefore be lost to the institution. The option of using 
Article 31(2) of the Staff Regulations thus gives the institution concerned the 
opportunity, in exceptional cases, of granting more attractive conditions to an 
exceptional candidate in order to secure his or her services for itself. That option 
may therefore be considered only in the event that an employer other than the 
Community institution concerned has expressed its interest in recruiting the 
candidate. That cannot be the case where such interest is expressed by different 
departments of the institution concerned. 
(see paras 80-81) 
See: T-195/96 Alexopoulou v Commission, cited above, para. 37 
I-A - 128 
WASMEIER v COMMISSION 
4. Even if they satisfy the conditions of eligibility for classification at the higher 
grade, newly recruited officials nevertheless have no individual right to such 
classification. 
(sec para. 92) 
See: T-195/96 Alexopoulou v Commission, para. 43 
5. The right to claim protection of legitimate expectations presupposes that three 
conditions are satisfied. Firstly, specific, unconditional and consistent assurances 
must have been given to the person concerned by the Community administration. 
Secondly, those assurances must be such as to lead the person to whom they are 
addressed to entertain a legitimate expectation. Thirdly, the assurances given must 
comply with the relevant rules. In that regard, the information contained in a 
competition notice is, in principle, too general and conditional to be capable of 
justifying a legitimate expectation on which a successful candidate could rely for the 
purposes of the precise determination of his classification in grade and step. 
(see paras 106. 108) 
See: Forvass v Commission, cited above, para. 70 
6. There is a breach of the principle laid down in Article 5(3) of the Staff 
Regulations when two categories of person whose factual and legal circumstances 
disclose no essential difference are treated differently at the time of their 
recruitment. There is also an infringement of the principle of equal treatment where 
situations which are different are treated in an identical manner. 
(see para. 122) 
See: T-18/89 and T-24/89 Tagaras v Court of Justice [1991] ECR II-53. para. 68 
I-A - 129 
SUMMARY - CASE T-381/00 
7. The statement of the grounds on which a decision adversely affecting an official 
is based, which is required by the second paragraph of Article 25 of the Staff 
Regulations, is intended, firstly, to provide the person concerned with the 
information necessary to enable him to ascertain whether or not the decision is well 
founded and, secondly, to allow the Community Courts to exercise their power of 
review as to the legality of the decision. The requirement to state grounds must be 
assessed in the light of the circumstances of the case, in particular the content of the 
act and the nature of the grounds relied on. 
(see para. 139) 
See: T-237/95 Carbajo Ferrero v Parliament [1997] ECR-SC I-A-141 and II-429, para. 
82 
I-A - 130