Judgment — ECLI:EU:C:2007:322
Date: 2007-06-07
Language of the case: French
Court formation: Fourth Chamber
Based on: Merger Treaty (1965)
Subject matter: Staff regulations and employment conditions - EC
Concepts: Appeals;Action brought by an unsuccessful candidate;Action brought against an act that has been repealed or withdrawn
Procedure: Appeal - unfounded;Appeal - inadmissible;Staff cases

summary of the applicant’s arguments in paragraphs 37 and 38 of the contested judgment. 33 – Rendo and Others v Commission (cited in footnote 18, paragraph 13). 34 – See in this regard the arguments on the cross-appeal, in particular points 38 to 51 of this Opinion. 35 – See point 9 of this Opinion. 36 – French: ‘le candidat qui répondait le mieux à l’ensemble des exigences mentionnées dans l’avis de vacance’ (see paragraph 32 of the contested judgment). 37 – French: ‘solide expérience de management de personnel [et] capacité de gestion, mobilisation et supervision de grandes équipes’. 38 – Case C-551/03 P General Motors v Commission [2006] ECR I-3173, paragraph 54, and Case C‑167/04 P JCB v Commission [2006] ECR I-0000, paragraph 108; see also Case C-229/05 P PKK and KNK v Council [2007] ECR I-0000, paragraph 37. 39 – The ‘commentaires’ column of the table annexed to the note of 18 November 2002 contains the following general observation regarding Mr Naqvi: ‘La candidature satisfait aux critères énoncés dans la description du poste’. 40 – In that paragraph the Court states that the appointing authority did not commit a manifest error of assessment in taking the view that Mr Naqvi satisfied the criteria for personnel management. The Court refers in particular to an evaluation sheet which shows that Mr Naqvi had proven experience in management which he had acquired both as a head of unit and as a head of delegation and that he seemed capable of motivating a team. It also refers to the two official staff reports on Mr Naqvi preceding the selection procedure. 41 – See point 29 of this Opinion and the case-law cited in footnote 15. 42 – Case C-397/03 P Archer Daniels Midland and Others v Commission [2006] ECR I‑4429, paragraph 60, and the judgments cited in footnote 15 in Aalborg Portland and Others v Commission (paragraph 372), FEG v Commission (paragraph 72) and TU v Commission (paragraph 85). 43 – See above, points 58 to 62 of this Opinion. 44 – French: ‘enjeux du poste’. 45 – French: ‘sensibilité pour la réforme’. 46 – Paragraph 55 of the contested judgment. 47 – Paragraphs 56 to 58 of the contested judgment. 48 – See point 29 of this Opinion and the case-law cited in footnote 15. 49 – Case C-68/05 P Koninklijke Coöperatie Cosun v Commission [2006] ECR I-0000, paragraph 54, with further references. 50 – As has already been stated in connection with the cross-appeal lodged by the Commission, the applicant claimed before the Court of First Instance that a selection procedure was based on an error in law where the competent Director-General made a pre-selection by which the Consultative Committee and the appointing authority were then essentially guided (see above, points 46 and 47 of this Opinion). 51 – Koninklijke Coöperatie Cosun v Commission (cited in footnote 49, paragraph 55). 52 – See the summary of his arguments in paragraph 39 of the contested judgment.