ORDER OF THE CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL
(Second Chamber)
15 February 2007
Cases F-142/06 and F-142/06 AJ
Francesco Bligny
v
Commission of the European Communities
(Officials – Open competition – Conditions for admission – Non‑admission to correction of the written test – Incomplete application – Proof of citizenship – Legal aid)
Application: brought under Articles 236 EC and 152 EA, in which Mr Bligny seeks annulment of the decisions of the selection board in competition
EPSO/AD/26/05 of 23 November and 7 December 2006 refusing to correct his written test on the ground that his application had
not included any document proving his citizenship. Furthermore, Mr Bligny has applied for legal aid for Cases F‑142/06 and
F‑142/06 R under Article 94 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, applicable mutatis mutandis to the Civil
Service Tribunal pursuant to Article 3(4) of Council Decision 2004/752/EC, Euratom of 2 November 2004 establishing the European
Union Civil Service Tribunal (OJ 2004 L 333, p. 7), until the entry into force of its rules of procedure.
Held: The action is dismissed as manifestly unfounded. The application for legal aid is rejected. The parties are ordered to bear
their own costs.
Summary
Officials – Competitions – Conditions for admission – Fixing by the competition notice
(Staff Regulations, Annex III, Arts 2 and 5)
The selection board in a competition is bound by the text of the notice of competition. Consequently, an application is manifestly
unfounded where it seeks the annulment of its decision to exclude a candidate who has not provided, within the requisite period,
a document proving his citizenship, despite the fact that the notice of competition clearly states that it must be included
if the application is to be valid. That conclusion is not affected by the argument, which is not based on any legal provision,
that the administration should have provided candidates with all the necessary information through their electronic application
file, without there being any need for them to consult the competition notice, for the candidates are bound by that competition
notice in the same way as the selection board.
(see paras 26-31, 33)
See:
T-95/00 and T-96/00 Zaur-Gora and Dubigh v Commission [2001] ECR-SC I‑A‑79 and II‑379, para. 47; T-139/00 Bal v Commission [2002] ECR-SC I‑A‑33 and II‑139, para. 35
F-12/05 Tas v Commission [2006] ECR-SC I‑A‑1‑79 and II‑A‑1‑285, para. 43