62021TJ0490_INF
Judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 14 December 2022 –Vanhoudt v EIB
(Case T‑490/21) (
1
)
(Civil service – EIB staff – Recruitment – Vacancy notice – Rejection of application – Appointment of another candidate – Obligation to state reasons – Irregularity in the recruitment procedure – Manifest error of assessment – Liability)
1.
Actions brought by officials – Staff of the European Investment Bank – Action against the decision rejecting a request for review – Effect – Disputed measure referred to the Court – Exception – Decision not confirmatory in character – Account taken of the reasoning therein
(Staff Regulations of the European Investment Bank, Art. 41)
(see paragraph 16)
2.
Actions brought by officials – Staff of the European Investment Bank – Interest in bringing proceedings – Decisions rejecting an application and appointing another candidate to a vacant post – Action challenging whether the successful candidate met the eligibility criteria – Applicant eligible to be appointed – Admissibility
(Staff Regulations of the European Investment Bank, Art. 41)
(see paragraphs 19-24)
3.
Officials – Staff of the European Investment Bank – Vacancy – Rejection of application – Obligation to state reasons – Scope – Observance of the secrecy of the selection board’s proceedings – Statement of reasons limited to the communication of the scores awarded by the selection board – Whether permissible
(Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 41; Staff Regulations of Officials, Annex III, Art. 6)
(see paragraphs 30-35)
4.
Officials – Staff of the European Investment Bank – Vacancy – Posts at level D and below – Obligation to establish a selection board – None – Selection board put in place despite the absence of a requirement to do so – Obligation to communicate its composition to the candidates – None
(see paragraphs 43-45, 57, 58, 70)
5.
Actions brought by officials – Staff of the European Investment Bank – Plea of illegality – Measures the illegality of which may be pleaded – Vacancy notice – Challenged in an action brought against a decision rejecting an application – Admissibility
(Art. 277 TFEU; Staff Regulations of the European Investment Bank, Art. 41)
(see paragraph 65)
6.
Officials – Staff of the European Investment Bank – Vacancy – Subject matter – Consideration of applications with regard to conditions laid down – Administration's discretion – Limits – Implementation of successive stages allowing candidates to be eliminated progressively having regard to the criteria laid down in the vacancy notice – Whether permissible
(see paragraphs 73-76, 78-80)
7.
Officials – Staff of the European Investment Bank – Vacancy – Consideration of the comparative merits of candidates – Administration's discretion – Limits – Observance of the conditions laid down in the vacancy notice – Judicial review – Limits – Manifest error of assessment – Burden of proof
(see paragraphs 84-86, 98, 100)
Operative part
The Court:
1.
Dismisses the action;
2.
Orders Mr Patrick Vanhoudt to pay the costs.
(
1
)	OJ C 422, 18.10.2021.