Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2003:265
Date: 2003-10-14
Based on: Merger Treaty (1965)
Subject matter: Staff regulations and employment conditions - EC
Concepts: Prior administrative complaint;Pleas in law;Vacancy notice
Procedure: Staff cases - unfounded;Staff cases - inadmissible

SUMMARY - CASET-174/02 
Summary 
1. Officials - Actions - Prior administrative complaint - Requirement that 
subject-matter and grounds be the same - Pleas in law and arguments not 
appearing in the complaint, but closely linked to it - Admissible - Consistency 
between complaint and application - Consideration by the Court of its own motion 
(Staff Regulations, Arts 90 and 91) 
2. 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 
(Staff Regulations, Arts 29(1) (a) and 45(1)) 
3. Officials - Actions - Pleas in law - Misuse of powers - Definition 
1. The rule that there should be harmony between a complaint, within the meaning 
of Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations, and the action which follows requires that, 
for a plea before the Community judicature to be admissible, it must have already 
been raised in the pre-litigation procedure, enabling the appointing authority to 
know in sufficient detail the criticisms made by the person concerned of the 
contested decision. Whilst claims for relief before the Community judicature may 
contain only the same heads of claim, based on similar matters, as those raised in 
the complaint, those heads of claim may nevertheless be developed before the 
Community judicature by the presentation of pleas in law and arguments which, 
whilst not necessarily appearing in the complaint, are closely linked to it. The 
question of consistency between the complaint and the application is a matter of 
public policy and should be considered by the Court of its own motion. 
(see para. 18) 
I-A - 242 
WIEME v COMMISSION 
See: T-57/89 Alexandrakis v Commission [1990] ECR II-143, para. 8; T-4/92 Vardakas 
v Commission [1993] ECR II-357, para. 16; T-4/96 5 v Court of Justice [19971 ECR 
II-1125, para. 98; T-187/98Cubero Vermurie v Commission [2000] ECR-SC I-A-195 and 
II-885, para. 35 
2. The latitude available to the appointing authority regarding appointment 
presupposes a careful examination of candidates' files and meticulous regard to the 
requirements laid down in the vacancy notice, so that the appointing authority is 
required to reject any candidate who does not meet those requirements. The vacancy 
notice constitutes a legal framework which the appointing authority imposes on itself 
and to which it must have meticulous regard. 
With a view to establishing whether the appointing authority exceeded the bounds 
of that legal framework and that it acted solely in the interests of the service, within 
the meaning of Article 7 of the Staff Regulations, the Court must first of all 
examine what conditions were laid down in the vacancy notice and then verify 
whether the candidate chosen by the appointing authority to occupy the vacant post 
actually satisfied those conditions. Such an examination must be limited to 
consideration of 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 power in a manifestly incorrect way. The 
Court cannot substitute its assessment of the candidates' qualifications for that of the 
appointing authority. 
(see paras 37-38) 
See: T-356/94 Vecchi v Commission [1996] ECR-SC I-A-437 and II-1251, paras 53 and 
54; T-159/96 Wenk v Commission [1998] ECR-SC I-A-193 and II-593, paras 63 and 64, 
and the case-law cited 
I-A - 243 
SUMMARY - CASE T-174/02 
3. The concept of misuse of powers has a precise scope which refers to the use of 
its powers by an administrative authority for a purpose other than that for which 
they were conferred upon it. A measure may amount to a misuse of powers only if 
it appears, on the basis of objective, relevant and consistent factors, to have been 
taken with the exclusive purpose, or at least the main purpose, of achieving an end 
other than that stated or evading a procedure specifically prescribed by the Staff 
Regulations for dealing with the circumstances of the case. 
(see para. 70) 
See: T-97/99 and T-99/99 Charnier and O'Hannrachain v Parliament [2001] ECR-SC 
I-A-1 and II-1, para. 46 
I-A - 244