Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2003:13
Date: 2003-01-23
Based on: Merger Treaty (1965)
Subject matter: Staff regulations and employment conditions - EC
Concepts: Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Communities;Principles of the law of the European civil service;Individual decisions;Principle of equality and non-discrimination;General
Procedure: Staff cases - unfounded;Action for damages - unfounded

SUMMARY - CASET-181/01 
Summary 
1. Officials - Decision adversely affecting an official - Rejection of an application 
- Duty to state reasons at the latest when the complaint is rejected -
Subject-matter - Scope - Member of the temporary staff with a political group in 
the Parliament 
(Staff Regulations, Article 25, second para.; Conditions of employment of other 
servants, Art. 11) 
2. Officials - Members of the temporary staff - Recruitment - Candidates entered 
on list of suitable candidates - Discretion of the administration - Judicial review 
- Limits 
3. Officials - Temporary staff - Recruitment - Procedure - Discretion of the 
appointing authority - Pre-recruitment interview - Engagement by a political 
group in the Parliament 
(Conditions of employment of other servants, Art. 2(c)) 
4. Officials - Equal treatment - Equal treatment of male and female officials -
Fundamental right - Observance ensured by the Community judicature - Rejection 
of the candidature of a pregnant woman - Burden of proof 
(EC Treaty, Art. 119 (Arts 117 to 120 were replaced by Arts 136 to 143 EC); 
Council Directives 97/80, Art. 4 and 2000/78, Art. 10) 
5. Officials - Equal treatment - Equal treatment of male and female officials -
Derogations - Measures to promote equality of opportunity between men and 
women - Conditions 
(Art. 141(4) EC) 
I-A - 20 
HECTORS v. PARLIAMENT 
1. Under the second paragraph of Article 25 of the Staff Regulations, applicable by 
analogy to temporary staff in accordance with Article 11 of the Conditions of 
employment of other servants of the European Communities, any decision adversely 
affecting a member of staff must state the grounds on which it is based. In the case 
of decisions involving a choice between several candidates, the appointing authority 
or, by analogy, the authority authorised to conclude contracts of employment, is 
under an obligation to state its reasons, at least at the stage when a complaint by an 
unsuccessful candidate against the decision rejecting his candidature, and/or against 
the decision appointing another candidate, is rejected. The purpose of that obligation 
is both to enable the Community judicature to review the legality of the contested 
decision and to give the person concerned a sufficient indication to determine 
whether that decision is well founded or contains defects allowing its legality to be 
challenged. 
In the case of a post as a member of the temporary staff with a political group in 
the Parliament, which, because a relationship of mutual trust is essential, the 
leadership of that group is entirely at liberty to fill with the candidate of its choice 
from the list of suitable candidates, the reasons stated may relate only to compliance 
with the statutory conditions governing the regularity of the appointment procedure. 
(see paras 35-37. 40. 41) 
See: C-169/88 Prelle v Commission [1989] ECR 4335, para. 9; T-45/90 Speybrouck v 
Parliament [1992] ECR II-33. para. 94; T-25/92 Vela Palacios v ESC [1993] ECR 
II-201, para. 22; T-60/94 Pierrat v Court of Justice [1995] ECR-SC I-A-23 and II-77. 
paras 30 and 32; T-123/95 B v Parliament [1997] ECR-SC I-A-245 and II-697. para. 72; 
T-372/00 Campolargo v Commission [2002] ECR-SC I-A-49 and II-223. para. 49 
2. The appointing authority has a very wide discretion in appointing candidates on 
a list of suitable candidates, in so far as it is under no obligation to follow the 
precise order of merit of the candidates on that list. The same principle applies a 
fortiori to the recruitment of members of the temporary staff, since the authority 
I-A - 21 
SUMMARY - CASET-181/01 
authorised to conclude contracts of employment has an even wider discretion in 
choosing candidates. 
The Court of First Instance may not substitute its own assessment of the candidates' 
qualifications for that of the latter authority. The review which it must carry out is 
confined to the question of whether the appointing authority, having regard to the 
considerations which may have led it to its assessment, kept within reasonable limits 
and did not manifestly misuse its power. 
(see paras 65, 69) 
See: T-217/96 Fabert-Goossens v Commission [1998] ECR-SC I-A-607 and II-1841, 
paras 28 and 29; T-152/00 E v Commission [2001] ECR-SC I-A-179 and II-813, paras 
28 and 29 
3. The procedures and obligations relating to the recruitment of officials do not 
apply where a post as a member of the temporary staff is to be filled. The authority 
authorised to conclude contracts of engagement has a very wide discretion both in 
the choice of the methods of organising the selection procedure and in the conduct 
of that procedure. 
The authority may not, therefore, be held to have exceeded its wide discretion in 
having organised interviews between applicants on a list of suitable candidates and 
members of a national delegation from a political group in the Parliament on whose 
behalf the recruitment was organised. The organisation of such interviews as part 
of the recruitment procedure is consistent with the need for a relationship of mutual 
trust which determines the engagement of a member of the temporary staff by a 
I-A - 22 
HECTORS v PARLIAMENT 
political group in the Parliament on the basis of Article 2(c) of the Conditions of 
employment of other servants. 
However, the opinion issued by the national delegation from the political group may 
not replace the final comparative examination to be carried out by the leadership of 
the political group in the Parliament in its capacity as the authority authorised to 
conclude contracts of employment. 
(see paras 94. 102. 104) 
See: Speybrouck v Parliament, cited above, para. 94; B v Parliament, cited above, para. 
72; T-95/01 Coget and Others v Court of Auditors [2001 ] ECR-SC I-A-191 and II-879, 
para. 56 
4. The principle of equal treatment for men and women in matters of employment 
and, at the same time, the principle of the prohibition of any direct or indirect 
discrimination on grounds of sex form part of the fundamental rights the observance 
of which the Community judicature must ensure pursuant to Article 220 EC. 
In that respect, the Court of Justice has recognised that it is necessary to ensure 
equality as between female and male workers employed by the Community itself, 
under the Staff Regulations. The requirements which that principle imposes in 
relations between the Community institutions and their staff are not limited to those 
resulting from Article 119 of the EEC Treaty (Articles 117 to 120 were replaced by 
Articles 136 EC to 143 EC), the wording of which remains relevant, or from the 
Community directives adopted in that field. That applies by analogy to the 
recruitment of members of the temporary staff. 
I-A - 23 
SUMMARY — CASE T-181/01 
In that context, it has been recognised in particular that refusal to employ a female 
worker on account of pregnancy constitutes direct discrimination on grounds of sex. 
However, under Article 10 of Directive 2000/78 and Article 4 of Directive 97/80, 
it is for the respondent to prove that there has been no breach of the principle of 
equal treatment only if the applicant establishes facts from which it may be 
presumed that there has been direct or indirect discrimination. 
Discrimination may not be presumed to exist merely because a candidate is 
pregnant, including in cases where the administration has been informed of that fact. 
In any event, the administration may not be considered to have breached the 
principle of equal treatment for men and women where it has not made a manifest 
error of assessment in selecting the candidature of a male candidate. 
(see paras 117-121, 124) 
See: 149/77 Defrenne [1978] ECR 1365, paras 26 and 27; 75/82 and 117/82 Razzouk and 
Beydoun v Commission [1984] ECR 1509, paras 16 and 17; C-177/88 Dekker [1990] ECR 
I-3941, para. 14; Speybrouckv Parliament, cited above, paras 247 and 48; T-112/96 and 
T-115/96 Séché v Commission [1999] ECR-SC I-A-115 and II-623, para. 116 
5. Article 141(4) EC merely makes it possible, not mandatory, to discriminate 
positively in favour of women. If that provision may be relied on as against a 
Community institution, that possibility is open, as far as concerns recruitment, only 
where the candidatures in question indicate equal qualifications and have been 
assessed objectively. 
(see paras 126-128) 
See: C-409/95 Marschall [1997] ECR I-6363 
I-A - 24