JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Fifth Chamber)

11 July 1996

Case T-170/95

Paolo Carrer

v

Court of Justice of the European Communities

‛Officials — Competition — Selection board — Decision by the selection board finding that a candidate had failed the oral test — Principle of equality of treatment — Infringement of the competition notice — Assessment by the selection board’

Full text in Italian II-1071

Application for:

annulment of the oral test in internal competition by tests No CJ 51/93, annulment of the decisions taken by the appointing authority on the basis of the reserve list drawn up by the selection board for that competition and annulment of the decision of the complaints committee of 15 June 1995 rejecting the applicant's complaint.

Decision:

Application dismissed.

Abstract of the Judgment

The applicant, an official of the Court of Justice, was admitted to internal competition by tests No CJ 51/93. He chose Italian for the first, second and third written tests and French for the fourth. For the oral test he chose Italian as his first language.

By note of 19 December 1994 he was informed that his name had not been entered on the reserve list. By memorandum of 17 January 1995 he asked for his results in all the tests in the competition to be communicated to him. A note of 20 January 1995 informed the applicant of the marks awarded to him for each of the tests. It is apparent from those that he had not obtained a sufficient number of marks in the oral test. By memorandum of 14 March 1995 he lodged a complaint against the decision of the selection board in the competition not to enter him on the reserve list drawn up when the tests were completed. His complaint was rejected on 15 June 1995.

Substance

The plea in law alleging infringement of the principle of equality of treatment

The Court of First Instance finds that two of the three members of the selection board had a good knowledge of Italian. Furthermore, whilst of the 12 candidates on the reserve list six, including two of Italian mother tongue, chose Italian for the oral test, the applicant does not allege that the conduct of those oral tests gave rise to reservations on the part of the candidates concerned. The applicant has merely challenged the defendant's statements without adducing the least proof to the contrary to support the conclusion that there was an infringement of the principle of equal treatment (paragraphs 26 to 29).

The plea alleging infringement of the competition notice

Within the framework of the conditions and requirements laid down in the competition notice, the selection board has a wide discretion as regards the arrangements for the conduct of a competition and the detailed content of the tests provided for. The Community judicature may not review the conduct of a test except to the extent necessary to ensure that the candidates were treated equally and that the choice made from among them was objective. It is likewise not for the Community judicature to review the detailed content of a test, unless that content is not confined within the limits laid down in the competition notice or is not consonant with the purposes of the competition test (paragraph 37).

See: 64/86,71/86, 72/86, 73/86 and 78/86 Sergio and Others v Commission [1988] ECR 1399, para. 22; 228/86 Goossens and Others v Commission [1988] ECR 1819, para. 14; T-132/89 Gallone v Council [1990] ECR II-549, para. 27; T-156/89 Valverde Mordi v Court of Justice [1991] ECR II-407, para. 121

The mere fact that a member of the selection board reads questions prepared in advance cannot be regarded as constituting an infringement of the notice of competition. On the contrary, the preparation of written questions for the oral test is likely to ensure equal treatment for the candidates who have thus to answer questions of a similar level of difficulty. Moreover, it cannot in any event be inferred from that practice that the members of the selection board had insufficient knowledge of Italian. Furthermore, the fact that the selection board did not ask the applicant any additional questions or enter on a detailed exchange of views with him did not prevent it from assessing the candidates' knowledge in accordance with the actual object of the competition notice. It does not constitute evidence either that the members of the board had insufficient grasp of Italian (paragraphs 39 and 40).

The plea alleging a manifest error of assessment

The assessments made by a selection board in a competition when examining the candidates' knowledge and abilities are comparative by nature. Those assessments and the decisions by which the selection board finds that a candidate has failed a test are the expression of value judgments as to the candidate's performance in the test and fall within the selection board's wide discretion. The Community judicature has no jurisdiction to review those decisions unless the rules which govern the proceedings of selection boards have been obviously infringed (paragraph 49).

See: 112/73,144/73 and 145/73 Campograndeand Others v Commission [1974] BCR 957, para. 53; T-17/90, T-28/91 and T-17/92 Cámara Alloisio and Others v Commission [1993] ECR II-841, para. 90; T-46/93 Michaël-Chiou v Commission [1994] ECRSC II-929, para. 48; T-291/94 Pimley-Smith v Commission [1995] ECRSC II-637, para. 63

In this case, the selection board, in assessing the candidates' professional knowledge and also their abilities and motivation, was bound to base its decisions exclusively and autonomously on the candidates' performances alone, in accordance with the requirements of the notice of competition. The assessments and judgments made of the applicant in his staff report and the fact that he had been employed in the Court Registry do not constitute irrefutable proof of a given degree of knowledge or give grounds for supposing that he gave satisfactory answers in the oral test. Furthermore, the staff report relates to duties carried out by the applicant in Category C and cannot in any event be considered to demonstrate the abilities required in order to be placed in Category B. Finally, the alleged similarity between the third written test and the part of the oral test concerning professional knowledge together with the fact that he passed that written test likewise do not support the assumption that the applicant performed well in the oral test (paragraphs 50 to 52).

See: Michael-Chiou v Commission, cited above, para. 50; T-125/95 Belhanbel v Commission [1996] ECRSC II-115, para. 33

Operative part:

The application is dismissed.