Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2003:176
Date: 2003-06-25
Based on: Merger Treaty (1965)
Subject matter: Staff regulations and employment conditions - EC
Concepts: Conduct of competitions;Obligations of the administration
Procedure: Staff cases - unfounded

SUMMARY - CASE T-72/01 
Summary 
1. Officials - Competitions - Assessment of the merits of candidates - Discretion 
of the selection board - Judicial review - Limits 
(Staff Regulations, Annex III) 
2. Officials - Competitions - Selection board - Rejection of candidature -
Obligation to state reasons - Scope - Observance of the secrecy of the board's 
proceedings 
(Staff Regulations, Annex III, Art. 6) 
3. Officials - Competitions - Selection board - Observance of the secrecy of the 
board's proceedings - Scope - Marking criteria - Included - Disclosure 
nevertheless conceivable either by virtue of a practice adopted by the institution in 
question, or by virtue of measures adopted to ensure public access to documents 
(Art. 255(1) EC; Staff Regulations, Art. 25; Annex III, Art. 6) 
4. Officials - Duty of the administration to have regard for the welfare of officials 
- Scope - Observance by the selection boards for competitions - Principle of 
sound administration 
(Staff Regulations, Art. 28; Annex III) 
1. The selection board of a competition enjoys a wide discretion, and the 
Community judicature has no jurisdiction to review its value judgments unless the 
rules which govern the proceedings of that selection board have manifestly been 
infringed. It follows that where, in an application for annulment of the decision of 
a selection board declaring that the applicant has failed the eliminatory tests, the 
applicant does not allege an infringement of those rules or does not provide proof 
of such an infringement, the Court has no jurisdiction to review the validity of the 
selection board's appraisal. 
(see para. 30) 
I-A - 170 
PYRES v COMMISSION 
See: T-17/90, T-28/91 and T-17/92 Camara Alloisio and Others v Commission [1993] 
ECR II-841, para 90; T-6/93 Pérez Jiménez v Commission [1994] ECR-SC I-A-155 and 
II-497, para 42; T-46/93 Michaël-Chiou v Commission [1994] ECR-SC I-A-297 and 
II-929. paras 48 and 49 
2. The secrecy surrounding the proceedings of selection boards in competitions was 
introduced by Article 6 of Annex III to the Staff Regulations 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 for decisions of a 
selection board must take account of the nature of the proceedings concerned. 
The task of a selection board involves 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, unlike the first, is primarily 
comparative in character and is accordingly covered by the secrecy inherent in those 
proceedings. The comparative assessments made by the selection board are reflected 
in the marks it allocates to the candidates, which are the expression of the value 
judgments made concerning each of them. Having regard to the secrecy which must 
surround the proceedings of a selection board, therefore, communication of the 
marks obtained by each candidate in the various tests constitutes an adequate 
statement of the reasons on which the board's decisions are based. 
(see paras 63-66) 
I-A - 171 
SUMMARY - CASE T-72/01 
See: C-254/95 Parliament v Innamorati [1996] ECR I-3423, paras 24, 25, 30 and 31; 
44/71 Marcato v Commission [1972] ECR 427, para. 20; 37/72 Marcato v Commission 
[1973] ECR 361, para.. 19; 31/75 Costacurta v Commission [1973] ECR 1563, para. 28; 
T-157/96 Affatato v Commission [1998] ECR-SC I-A-41 and II-97, paras 33 to 35 
3. 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, and are therefore covered by the secrecy of the proceedings in the 
same way as the selection board's assessments. This conclusion does not mean that 
candidates in a competition cannot, upon request, obtain details of the general 
criteria used to mark the tests together with their marked scripts, where appropriate, 
in accordance with a practice intended to allow access to such documents which the 
institution organising the competition has adopted in order to reconcile the need for 
transparency in recruitment procedures with the secrecy of the proceedings of 
selection boards required under Article 6 of Annex III to the Staff Regulations. 
Likewise, it is conceivable that, where the disclosure of such documents is 
compatible with observance of the secrecy of the proceedings of selection boards 
and with the compelling requirements of public policy which underlie the need for 
secrecy, the Community institutions may be under an obligation to do so not 
pursuant to Article 25 of the Staff Regulations and their duty to state reasons, but 
in accordance with the measures taken to put into effect the public's right of access 
to documents under Article 255(1) EC. 
(see paras 69-71) 
See: Parliament v Innamorati, cited above, para. 29 
I-A - 172 
PYRES v COMMISSION 
4. Although it is not mentioned in the Staff Regulations, the administration's duty 
to have regard to the welfare of officials, which is also incumbent on the selection 
board for a competition, reflects the balance of reciprocal rights and obligations 
established by the Staff Regulations in the relationship between the official authority 
and the civil servants. That duty and the principle of sound administration mean, in 
particular, that when the competent authority takes a decision concerning the 
situation of an official it should take into consideration all the factors which may 
affect its decision and that when doing so it should take into account not only the 
interests of the service but also those of the official concerned. 
A member of staff may not, however, rely on that to claim that he should have been 
admitted to the oral test in an internal competition even though he failed the written 
tests, or that he should have been retained in the service of the institution, contrary 
to Article 28 of the Staff Regulations. 
(see paras 77, 79-80) 
See: 321 /85 Schwier ing v Court of Auditors [1986] ECR 3199, para. 18; C-298/93 Klinke 
v Court of Justice [1994] ECR I-3009, para 38; T-133/89 Burban v Parliament [1990] 
ECR II-245. para 27; T-14/91 Weyricli v Commission [1991] ECR II-235, para 50; 
T-100/92 La Pietra v Commission [1994] ECR-SC l-A-83 and II-275, para. 58; T-102/98 
Papadeas v Committee oj the Regions [1999] ECR-SC I-A-211 and II-1091, para. 56 
I-A - 173