Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2001:232
Date: 2001-09-19
Language of the case: French
Court formation: Second Chamber
Based on: Merger Treaty (1965)
Subject matter: Staff regulations and employment conditions - EC
Concepts: Consideration of applications;Judicial review;Plea alleging misuse of powers
Procedure: Staff cases - unfounded;Action for damages - unfounded

SUMMARY — CASE T-152/00 
Summary 
1. Officials - Vacant post — Filling by promotion or transfer - Consideration of 
the comparative merits of candidates — Discretion of the administration — Limits 
- Compliance with the conditions laid down in the vacancy notice - Judicial 
review - Scope 
2. Officials — Actions - Pleas in law — Misuse of powers - Definition - Burden 
of proof and taking of evidence 
1. With a view to establishing whether the appointing authority exceeded the bounds 
of the legal framework constituted by a notice of vacancy, the Court must examine 
what conditions were laid down for filling the vacant post and then verify whether 
the successful candidate actually satisfied those conditions. 
Such an examination must however be limited to the question whether, having 
regard to the considerations which may have influenced it in making its assessment, 
the administration remained within reasonable bounds and did not use its powers in 
a manifestly incorrect way. The Court cannot therefore substitute its assessment of 
the appointed candidate's qualifications for that of the appointing authority. 
(see paras 28-29) 
See: T-159/96 Wenk v Commission [1998] ECR-SC I-A-193 and II-593, para. 64 
I-A - 180 
E v COMMISSION 
2. A decision is vitiated by misuse of powers only if it appears, on the basis of 
objective, specific and consistent evidence, to have been taken for purposes other 
than those stated. In that regard, it is not sufficient to refer to certain facts in 
support of claims; there must also be adduced evidence of a sufficiently specific, 
objective and consistent nature to support their truth or, at the very least, their 
probability, failing which the material accuracy of a party's statements cannot be 
challenged. 
(see paras 68-69) 
See: T-111/99 Samper v Parliament [2000] ECR-SC I-A-135 and II-611, para. 64; 
C-274/99 P Connolly v Commission [2001] ECR I-1611, paras 102 and 113 
I-A- 181