JUDGMENT OF THE EUROPEAN UNION CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL

(Third Chamber)

14 May 2014

Christodoulos Alexandrou

v

European Commission

‛Civil service — Open competition — Competition notice EPSO/AD/231/12 — Non-admission to the assessment tests — Access to documents’

Application:

under Article 270 TFEU, applicable to the EAEC Treaty pursuant to Article 106a thereof, in which Mr Alexandrou seeks annulment of the decisions not to admit him to the assessment tests in competition EPSO/AD/231/12, communicated by the European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) on 28 June and 16 July 2012, and of the decision of 31 January 2013 rejecting his complaint of 25 September 2012 against those decisions.

Held:

The action is dismissed. Mr Alexandrou is to bear his own costs and is ordered to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.

Summary

Officials — Competitions — Selection board — Elimination of a candidate because of inadequate results obtained in multiple-choice tests — Obligation to state the reasons on which the decision is based — Scope — Communication of the final eliminatory mark — Sufficient statement of reasons unless there are special circumstances

(Staff Regulations, Art. 25(2))

The requirement that a decision adversely affecting a person, such as a decision taken by a selection board in a competition about a candidate, should state the reasons on which it is based is intended to provide the person concerned with sufficient details to allow him to ascertain whether or not the decision is well founded and make it possible for the decision to be the subject of judicial review.

In the absence of special circumstances, an administration which organises recruitment tests in the form of multiple-choice questions complies with its obligation to state reasons by communicating to the candidates who have failed those tests the proportion, as a percentage, of correct answers and by sending to them, upon request to that effect, the answer which should have been given to each of the questions asked.

(see paras 30-33)

See:

23 January 2003, T‑53/00 Angioli v Commission, para. 67 and 27 March 2003, T‑33/00 Martínez Páramo and Others v Commission, para. 43

29 June 2011, F‑7/07 Angioi v Commission, paras 136 to 138

JUDGMENT OF THE EUROPEAN UNION CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL

(Third Chamber)

14 May 2014

Christodoulos Alexandrou

v

European Commission

‛Civil service — Open competition — Competition notice EPSO/AD/231/12 — Non-admission to the assessment tests — Access to documents’

Application:

under Article 270 TFEU, applicable to the EAEC Treaty pursuant to Article 106a thereof, in which Mr Alexandrou seeks annulment of the decisions not to admit him to the assessment tests in competition EPSO/AD/231/12, communicated by the European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) on 28 June and 16 July 2012, and of the decision of 31 January 2013 rejecting his complaint of 25 September 2012 against those decisions.

Held:

The action is dismissed. Mr Alexandrou is to bear his own costs and is ordered to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.

Summary

Officials — Competitions — Selection board — Elimination of a candidate because of inadequate results obtained in multiple-choice tests — Obligation to state the reasons on which the decision is based — Scope — Communication of the final eliminatory mark — Sufficient statement of reasons unless there are special circumstances

(Staff Regulations, Art. 25(2))

The requirement that a decision adversely affecting a person, such as a decision taken by a selection board in a competition about a candidate, should state the reasons on which it is based is intended to provide the person concerned with sufficient details to allow him to ascertain whether or not the decision is well founded and make it possible for the decision to be the subject of judicial review.

In the absence of special circumstances, an administration which organises recruitment tests in the form of multiple-choice questions complies with its obligation to state reasons by communicating to the candidates who have failed those tests the proportion, as a percentage, of correct answers and by sending to them, upon request to that effect, the answer which should have been given to each of the questions asked.

(see paras 30-33)

See:

23 January 2003, T‑53/00 Angioli v Commission, para. 67 and 27 March 2003, T‑33/00 Martínez Páramo and Others v Commission, para. 43

29 June 2011, F‑7/07 Angioi v Commission, paras 136 to 138