Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2002:66
Date: 2002-03-13
Language of the case: French
Court formation: Second Chamber
Based on: Merger Treaty (1965)
Subject matter: Staff regulations and employment conditions - EC
Concepts: Conditions for admission;Purpose;Effects of a judgment annulling a measure;General;Application form
Procedure: Staff cases - unfounded;Action for damages - unfounded;Staff cases - successful

SUMMARY - JOINED CASES T-357/00, T-361/00, T-363/00 and T-364/00 
Summary 
1. Officials — Competitions - Competition based on qualifications and tests -
Conditions of admission — Laid down in notice of competition — Assessment by the 
selection board of the professional experience of the candidates - Limits 
(Staff Regulations, Annex III, Art. 1) 
2. Officials - Competitions — Competition based on qualifications and tests -
Conditions of admission — Professional experience — Selection board's discretion 
— Judicial review — Scope 
(Staff Regulations, Annex III, Art. 2) 
3. Officials — Competition — Competition based on qualifications and tests — 
Conditions of admission — Requirements to be complied with by candidates — 
Scope 
(Staff Regulations, Annex III, Art. 2) 
4. Officials — Actions — Interest in bringing an action - Submission seeking the 
annulment of a decision which cannot be altered - Submission not valid 
(Staff Regulations, Art. 91) 
5. Officials - Actions — Action for annulment and for damages — Annulment of 
an irregular competition procedure — Interests to be taken into consideration — 
Annulment solely of the decision rejecting the applicant's candidature - Sufficient 
reparation - Conditions 
(Staff Regulations, Art. 91) 
1. Notwithstanding its discretion with regard to the procedures for and content of 
the tests in a competition, the selection board is bound by the wording of the notice 
of competition as published. The basic function of a notice of competition is to give 
those interested the most accurate information possible about the conditions of 
I-A - 38 
MARTINEZ ALARCÓN AND OTHERS v COMMISSION 
eligibility for the post, in order to enable them to judge, first, whether they should 
apply for it and, second, what supporting documents are important for the 
proceedings of the selection board and must therefore be enclosed with the 
application. 
With regard, in particular, to a condition of admission relating to professional 
experience, the actual assessment of the level of that experience must take place 
within the framework established by the wording of the notice of competition and 
cannot in any way allow the selection board to add any condition which does not 
actually appear in the notice. 
(see paras 61-62) 
See: 225/87 Belardinelli v Court of Justice [1989] ECR 2353, para. 13; T-214/99 
Carrasco Benítez v Commission [2000] ECR-SC I-A-257 and II-1169, para. 69; T-95/00 
and T-96/00 Zaur-Gora and Dubigh v Commission [2001] ECR-SC I-A-79 and II-379, 
para. 47, and the case-law cited 
2. The selection board enjoys, in principle, a discretion when assessing the previous 
professional experience of candidates, both as regards nature and duration thereof 
and as regards its relevance to the post to be filled. In the light of that discretion, 
it is for the Community judicature to consider whether the selection board made a 
manifest error in assessing the duration and level of the professional experience of 
the candidates not admitted to the competition. In carrying out that review, the 
Community judicature must bear in mind that, when deciding whether candidates 
are to be admitted or excluded, the selection board is entitled, as a rule, to limit its 
examination solely to the candidates' application forms and the documents enclosed 
with them and cannot be required to make enquiries itself to ensure that candidates 
satisfy all the conditions laid down in the notice of competition. 
(see paras 75-76) 
See: 9/76 Morello v Commission [1976] ECR 1415, paras 8 and 9; 417/85 Maurissen v 
Court of Auditors [1987] ECR 551, paras 14 and 15; T-133/89 Burbau v Parliament 
I-A - 39 
SUMMARY — JOINED CASES T-357/00, T-361/00, T-363/00 and T-364/00 
[1990] ECR II-245, paras 31 and 34, confirmed on appeal by the Court of Justice in 
C-255/90 P Búrban v Parliament [1992] ECR I-2253; Carrasco Benítez v Commission, 
cited above, paras 70 and 77, and the case-law cited 
3. When clear provisions in a notice of competition lay down the unequivocal 
requirement that candidates attach supporting documents to their application forms, 
a candidate's failure to comply with that requirement cannot enable or a fortiori 
oblige the selection board or the appointing authority to act contrary to that notice 
of competition. 
(see para. 76) 
See: Burban v Parliament, cited above, para. 12 
4. An official does not have a legitimate interest in putting forward submissions 
seeking the annulment of a decision when it is already certain that it can only be 
confirmed afresh. 
(see para. 93) 
See: 432/85 Souna v Commission [1987] ECR 2229, para. 20; T-99/95 Stott v 
Commission [1996] ECR II-2227, para. 32; T-130/98 and T-131/98 Panichelli v 
Parliament [2000] ECR-SC I-A-287 and II-1311, para. 52, and the case-law cited 
5. When a competition procedure has been vitiated by an irregularity in respect of 
a particular candidate, it is necessary to take into account not only the interests of 
that candidate who was the victim of the unlawful act but also the interests of third 
parties whose legitimate expectations might be injured if the application for 
I-A - 40 
MARTÍNEZ ALARCÓN AND OTHERS v COMMISSION 
annulment of the competition procedure were granted. Where calling in question the 
entire results of the competition or annulling the appointments would constitute an 
excessive penalty for the irregularity found, annulment of the selection board's 
decision rejecting that candidate's candidacy for admission to the competition will 
in itself constitute sufficient reparation. 
(see paras 97-98) 
See: 24/79 Oberthür v Commission [1980] ECR 1743, paras 11 and 13; 67/81 Ruske v 
Commission [1982] ECR 661, para. 13; C-242/90 P Commission v Albani and Others 
[1993] ECR I-3839, paras 13 and 14; T-95/98 Gogos v Commission [2000] ECR-SC 
I-A-51 and II-219, para. 57 
I-A - 41