Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2000:85
Date: 2000-03-23
Language of the case: Greek
Court formation: Second Chamber
Based on: Merger Treaty (1965)
Subject matter: Staff regulations and employment conditions - EC
Concepts: Effects of a judgment annulling a measure;Selection Board;Sufficient compensation provided by annulment of the act
Procedure: Action for damages - unfounded;Staff cases - successful

SUMMARY - CASE T-95/98 
Held: The selection board's decision not to enter the applicant's 
name on the list of suitable candidates in competition 
COM/A/17/96 is annulled. The remainder of the 
application is dismissed. The Commission is ordered to 
bear the costs. 
Summary 
1. Officials - Competitions — Selection Board — Composition — Sufficient stability 
to ensure the consistent marking of candidates — Absence — Breach of essential 
procedural requirements — Consequences 
(Staff Regulations, Annex III, Art. 3(1)) 
2. Officials — Actions — Judgment annulling a decision — Effects — Annulment of 
the decision of a Selection Board for a competition not to enter a candidate on the 
list of suitable candidates — Obligation of the appointing authority — Results of the 
competition not called into question 
(Staff Regulations, Art. 91) 
3. Officials — Actions — Action for compensation — Annulment of the contested 
unlawful act — Appropriate reparation of non-material harm 
(Staff Regulations, Art. 91) 
1. A selection board for a competition is required to ensure, by safeguarding the 
stability of its composition in accordance with the rules governing its work, that the 
marking criteria are applied consistently to all candidates, particularly in the oral 
test. In that regard, a selection board's failure to abide by the rules governing its 
work may, having regard to the importance of the principle of equal treatment in 
the procedure in question, be characterised as a breach of essential procedural 
requirements. 
I-A - 52 
GOGOS v COMMISSION 
Where the Court characterises such a failure to comply with the rules governing the 
work of a selection board as a breach of essential procedural requirements, the 
Selection Board's decision not to enter a candidate's name on the list of suitable 
candidates must be annulled without its being necessary for the person concerned 
to prove that there has been any particular adverse effect on his subjective rights or 
to show that the results of the competition might have been different if the essential 
procedural requirements in question had been complied with. 
(see paras 41 to 56) 
See: C-291/89 Interhotel v Commission [1991] ECR I-2257, para. 17; C-304/89 Oliveira 
v Commission [1991] ECR I-2283, para. 21; T-44/91 Smets v Commission [1994] 
ECR-SC I-A-97 and II-319, paras 54, 58 and 60; T-50/98 Rasmussen v Commission 
[1999] ECR-SC I-A-63 and II-319, paras 22 and 27; T-102/98 Panadeas v Committee of 
the Regions [1999] ECR-SC I-A-193 and II-1091, para. 70 
2. Where a selection board's decision not to enter a candidate's name on the list of 
suitable candidates is annulled, the rights of the person concerned are adequately 
protected, even though he has sought annulment of the appointing authority's 
decision approving and validating the list of suitable candidates and also of any 
associated implementing act, if the appointing authority finds a just solution in the 
applicant's case, without there being any need to call into question the entire results 
of the competition as a whole or to annul the appointments that have been made in 
consequence of it. 
(see para. 57) 
See; Smets v Commission, cited above, para. 64, and the case-law cited there; T-159/96 
Wenk v Commission [1998] ECR-SC I-A-193 and II-93, para. 121, and the case-law cited 
there 
I-A - 53 
SUMMARY — CASE T-95/98 
3. The annulment of an administrative act challenged by an official constitutes 
appropriate and, in principle, sufficient reparation for any non-material harm which 
he may have sustained. 
(see para. 60) 
See: 343/87 Culin v Commission [1990] ECR I-225, para. 26; T-158/89 Van v 
ESC [1991] ECR II-1341, para. 37; T-58/92 Moat v Commission [1993] ECR II-1443, 
para. 71 
I-A - 54