Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2003:84
Date: 2003-03-27
Language of the case: French
Court formation: Fifth Chamber
Based on: Merger Treaty (1965)
Subject matter: Staff regulations and employment conditions - EC
Concepts: Obligations of the Selection Board;Specific cases;General;Selection Board;Assessment of candidates’ abilities
Procedure: Staff cases - unfounded

SUMMARY — CASE T-33/00 
Summary 
1. Officials - Actions - Objection of res judicata - Conditions - Same parties, 
purpose and submissions in both actions 
(Staff Regulations, Art. 91) 
2. Officials - Competitions - Selection board - Rejection of candidature -
Obligation to state reasons - Scope - Observance of the secrecy of the board's 
proceedings 
(Staff Regulations, Art. 25; Annex III, Art. 6) 
3. Officials - Competitions — Assessment of the merits of candidates - Discretion 
of the selection board — Judicial review — Limits 
4. Officials - Competitions — Selection board - Recourse to examiners - Whether 
permissible - Conditions 
(Staff Regulations, Annex III, Art. 3, third para.) 
5. Officials - Competitions - Competition based on tests - Assessment of 
candidates' performance in tests — Discretion of the selection board 
1. An action is inadmissible by reason of res judicata if it involves the same parties, 
has the same purpose and is based on the same submissions as an earlier action 
which resulted in a decision by the Community judicature on the substantive issues. 
I-A - 106 
MARTINEZ PARAMO AND OTHERS v COMMISSION 
That does not apply in the case of an action against a selection board's refusal to 
reexamine the paper of a candidate in a competition which is brought after an action 
by the same applicant for annulment of the procedure and tests of that competition, 
in which judgment was not given on the substantive issues. 
(see paras 31-34) 
See: 159/84,267/84, 12/85 and 264/85 Ainsworth v Commission [1987] ECR 1579. paras 
3 and 4: T-28/89 Maindiaux and Others v ESC [19901 ECR II-58. para. 23 
2. The requirement that a decision adversely affecting a person should state the 
reasons on which it is based is intended to provide the person concerned with 
sufficient details to allow him to ascertain whether or not the decision is well 
founded and make it possible for the decision to be the subject of judicial review. 
As far as concerns decisions taken by a selection board in a competition, the 
obligation to state reasons must nevertheless be reconciled with observance of the 
secrecy surrounding the proceedings of selection boards by virtue of Article 6 of 
Annex III to the Staff Regulations. That secrecy was introduced with a view to 
guaranteeing the independence of selection boards and the objectivity of their 
proceedings, by protecting them from all external interference and pressures, 
whether these come from the Community administration itself or the candidates 
concerned or third parties. Observance of this secrecy therefore precludes both 
disclosure of the attitudes adopted by individual members of selection boards and 
disclosure of any factors relating to individual or comparative assessments of 
candidates. 
That being so, the obligation to state the reasons on which decisions of a selection 
board in a competition are based must take account of the nature of the proceedings 
concerned, which involve as a rule at least two separate stages, the first being an 
examination of the applications in order to select the candidates admitted to the 
competition, and the second being an examination of the abilities of the candidates 
for the posts to be filled in order to draw up a list of suitable candidates. The 
second stage of the selection board's proceedings involves tasks that are primarily 
comparative in character and is accordingly covered by the secrecy inherent in those 
I-A - 107 
SUMMARY — CASE T-33/00 
proceedings. The criteria for marking adopted by the selection board prior to the 
tests form an integral part of the comparative assessments which it makes of the 
candidates' respective merits. Those criteria are therefore covered by the secrecy 
of the proceedings in the same way as the selection board's assessments. The 
comparative assessments made by the selection board are reflected in the marks it 
allocates to the candidates. Having regard to the secrecy which must surround the 
proceedings of a selection board, communication of the marks obtained in the 
various tests constitutes an adequate statement of the reasons on which the board's 
decisions are based, since the board is not required to identify the applicants' 
answers which were considered unsatisfactory or to explain why they were 
considered unsatisfactory. 
(see paras 43-50, 52) 
See: 44/71 Marcato v Commission [1972] ECR 427, paras 19 and 20; 37/72 Marcato v 
Commission [1973] ECR 361, paras 18 and 19; 31/75 Costacurta v Commission [1975] 
ECR 1563, paras 10 and 11; 89/79 Bonu v Council [1980] ECR 553, para. 5; 195/80 
Michel v Parliament [1981] ECR 2861, para. 22; C-254/95 P Parliament v Innamorati 
[1996] ECR I-3423, paras 24 to 26, 28 to 30 and 31; T-291/94 Pimley-Smith v 
Commission [1995] ECR-SC I-A-209 and II-637, paras 63 and 64 
3. The selection board of a competition enjoys a wide discretion in evaluating the 
results of tests in that competition, and the Community judicature has no jurisdiction 
to review its value judgments unless the rules which govern the proceedings of 
selection boards have manifestly been infringed. 
(see para. 57) 
See: T-153/95/Caps v Court of Justice [1996] ECR-SC I-A-233 and II-663, para. 38 
I-A - 108 
MARTÍNEZ PÁRAMO AND OTHERS v COMMISSION 
4. The selection board may have recourse to the assistance of examiners whenever 
it considers this necessary. There is no irregularity if the methods of marking do not 
differ from one candidate to another and the selection board retains the power to 
make the final assessment. 
(see para. 58) 
See: T-132/89 Gallone v Council [1990] ECR II-549, para. 28 
5. The selection board necessarily enjoys a wide discretion in evaluating candidates' 
performance in the tests in the light of the examiners'/markers' proposals. 
(see para. 62) 
I-A - 109