62024TJ0229_RES
Case T‑229/24
Isabel Sánchez
v
European Commission
Judgment of the General Court (Tenth Chamber) of 29 April 2026
(Civil service – Officials – Recruitment – Notice of competition – Open competition EPSO/AD/391/21 – Decision not to place the applicant’s name on the reserve list – Equal treatment – Normalisation of marks – Obligation to state reasons – Rights of the defence – Principle of good administration – Duration of the administrative procedure – Reasonable period of time)
Officials – Competitions – Competition based on qualifications and tests – Obligations of the Selection Board – Consideration of the comparative merits of candidates – Recourse to the normalisation of marks – Obligation to indicate such recourse in the notice of competition or to give candidates notice thereof before the tests – No obligation
(Staff Regulations of Officials, Annex III, Art. 1(1)(e))
(see paragraphs 37-44, 69)
Officials – Competitions – Competition based on qualifications and tests – Implementation of the marking criteria and their weighting – Selection board’s discretion – Recourse to the normalisation of marks following the tests – Whether permissible
(Staff Regulations of Officials, Art. 27 and Annex III)
(see paragraphs 46-49, 51-54)
Officials – Competitions – European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) – Conduct of competitions for the recruitment of officials – EPSO’s role – Assistance given to the selection board – Technical support in the context of normalisation of the candidates’ marks – Whether permissible – Need to provide for EPSO’s intervention in the notice of competition – None
(Staff Regulations of Officials, Annex III, Arts 1(1)(e) and 7(1) to (3))
(see paragraphs 70-77)
Officials – Competitions – Selection board – Decision not to include a candidate on the reserve list – Obligation to state reasons – Scope – Observance of the secrecy of proceedings – Disclosure of the marks obtained in the various tests – Whether permissible – Requirement to state additional reasons where marks are normalised by the selection board – None
(Art. 296 TFEU; Staff Regulations of Officials, Annex III, Art. 6)
(see paragraphs 91-100)
Officials – Principles – Rights of the defence – Obligation to hear the person concerned before adopting a measure adversely affecting him or her – Scope – Application to the decisions of a competition selection board – Obligation to disclose the mathematical formula applied in the context of the normalisation of marks – None
(Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 41(2)(a))
(see paragraphs 104-109, 117-120)
Officials – Competitions – Competition based on qualifications and tests – Assessment of the candidates’ merits – Review of applications – Purpose
(Staff Regulations of Officials, Annex III, Art. 7(2)(b))
(see paragraph 113)
Actions brought by officials – Prior administrative complaint – Implied decision rejecting the complaint – Subsequent express decision – Breach of the obligation to act within a reasonable time – None
(Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 41(1); Staff Regulations of Officials, Arts 90 and 91(3))
(see paragraphs 127-132)
Officials – Competitions – Obligation on EU institutions to assure all candidates a smooth and regular running of the tests – Breach – Relevance to the legality of the tests – Conditions – Burden of proof
(see paragraphs 142-145, 149-152)
Résumé
In connection with an action for annulment, which it rejects, brought by a former candidate in open competition EPSO/AD/391/21, the General Court rules for the first time on a challenge to the normalisation of marks (‘normalisation’) in a competition.
In May 2021, the applicant applied to participate in the competition at issue, which was intended to establish reserve lists from which the EU institutions, mainly the European Commission, could recruit officials.
In December 2022, the applicant was informed that, on completion of the tests in the last phase of the competition, her name had not been included on the reserve list because she was not among the candidates who had obtained the highest marks in those tests.
Specifically, the applicant is challenging, in essence, the fact that the normalisation method, as a marking method, was not published in the notice of competition, and submits that that method should, at the very least, have been determined and disclosed by the selection board before the beginning of the tests.
Findings of the Court
The Court begins by noting that the proceedings of a selection board involve as a rule at least two separate stages, the first being an examination of the applications in order to select the candidates admitted to the competition and the second being an examination of the abilities of the candidates vis-à-vis the post to be filled, in order to draw up a reserve list.
Normalisation, which relates to the second stage of the proceedings of the selection board, is intended to neutralise the relative subjectivity of the different markers in giving marks, some of whom are objectively more severe than others. Normalisation may be appropriate, depending on the circumstances of each recruitment procedure. The method in question fosters implementation of the principle of equal treatment since, first, it is applied uniformly to all the candidates who have been assessed independently by at least two separate markers. Second, it enables the candidates to be examined comparatively on the basis of comparable data, in the present case the marks normalised on the basis of all the candidates in the competition, in order to ensure that the assessment is uniform.
The Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union (‘the Staff Regulations’), in particular Article 1(1)(e) of Annex III thereto, provides neither that possible recourse to normalisation should be made public nor that it should be disclosed before the tests. Therefore, it is not mandatory that such recourse be referred to in a notice of competition.
In addition, the decision to have recourse to normalisation can be adopted only following the tests, when the marks given by the markers are known to the members of the selection board and the discrepancies between the marks given by the different markers are found to be too great. Accordingly, it is impossible to know at the outset whether recourse to normalisation will be necessary, meaning that the decision to have recourse to it cannot be adopted by the selection board before the tests are marked.
In view of the broad discretion enjoyed by the selection board in conducting its proceedings, even if the possibility of normalisation is not referred to in the notice of competition, it is open to the selection board to have recourse to normalisation and to determine the procedure for doing so.
Unlike the ‘kind’ of tests involved and ‘how they are marked’, which relate to the tests themselves and therefore to objective factors that must be specified in the notice of competition, normalisation is intended to neutralise subjectivity in the context of the comparative assessments by the selection board, which are themselves covered by the secrecy surrounding the proceedings of selection boards. Moreover, as the applicant conceded at the hearing, the fact of knowing, before the tests, that the selection board would use normalisation would not in practice have changed her preparation for the competition.
As regards the intervention by the European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) at the normalisation stage, in the context of the procedure in question, that office merely applied a scientifically proven mathematical formula to the marks given by the markers, and the selection board ultimately decided to adopt one of the two normalisation proposals made by EPSO. EPSO therefore did not exceed its role, which, under Article 7(1) to (3) of Annex III to the Staff Regulations, consists in providing assistance to the various institutions by defining and organising the selection procedures for officials in accordance with the general rules adopted by those institutions.
As regards the scope of the obligation to state reasons for the selection board’s decision, the Court finds that recourse to normalisation does not require that any additional reasons be stated.
Indeed, since normalisation is intended to contribute to a comparative examination of the candidates, a candidate’s request seeking to know what impact the normalisation had on his or her score would involve providing that candidate with both his or her interim score and those of the other candidates. Knowing that impact would also involve disclosure of the calculations performed.
The interim scores, disclosure of which could reveal factors relating to individual or comparative assessments of candidates, are necessarily covered by the secrecy inherent in the proceedings of selection boards.
Accordingly, given the need to reconcile the obligation to state reasons with observance of the secrecy surrounding the proceedings of selection boards, neither the interim scores nor the calculations performed on the basis of those scores can be disclosed to the applicant.
Similarly, although the mathematical formula applied in the context of the normalisation is not covered by the secrecy of the proceedings of selection boards, the same is not true of the interim scores and the calculations performed in the context of the normalisation, disclosure of which would undermine the balance between the rights of the defence and the secrecy of proceedings of selection boards.