Case C-362/05 P 
Jacques Wunenburger 
v 
Commission of the European Communities 
(Appeal — Staff cases — Promotion — Selection procedure — Rejection of the 
appellants candidature — Retirement in the interests of the service — Obligation to 
state the reasons on which the decision is based — Error of law — Cross-appeal — 
Subject-matter of the dispute — Interest in bringing proceedings) 
Opinion of Advocate General Kokott delivered on 15 February 2007 I - 4336 
Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber), 7 June 2007 I - 4355 
Summary of the Judgment 
1. Appeals — Purpose 
(Statute of the Court of Justice, Art 56, second para.) 
I - 4333 
SUMMARY — CASE C-362/05 P 
2. Actions for annulment — Contested measure becoming obsolete in the course of the 
proceedings — Action retaining its purpose where the contested measure not withdrawn 
(Arts 230 EC and 233, first para., EC; Staff Regulations of Officials, Art 29) 
1. Since, under the second paragraph of 
Article 56 of the Statute of the Court of 
Justice, an appeal may be brought by any 
party which has been unsuccessful, in 
whole or in part, in its submissions, an 
appeal brought against a judgment of the 
Court of First Instance is admissible in 
so far as the latter has rejected a plea 
that the action is inadmissible or has 
become devoid of purpose, even if, 
finally, the action is dismissed as 
unfounded. Having regard to that provi­
sion, there is no need to determine 
whether the plea, raised before the Court 
of First Instance and dismissed by it, 
seeks the dismissal of the action because 
it is inadmissible or because it has 
become devoid of purpose, those being 
two preliminary issues, which, if success­
ful, would prevent the Court of First 
Instance from ruling on the merits. 
(see paras 36-39) 
2. Obsolescence of the contested measure 
occurring during the proceedings does 
not in itself oblige the Community 
judicature to declare that there is no 
need to adjudicate for lack of purpose or 
for lack of interest in bringing proceed­
ings at the date of the delivery of the judgment. The dispute thus retains its 
purpose where the contested measure 
has not been formally withdrawn, and 
the appellant may retain an interest in 
claiming its annulment in order to 
prevent its alleged unlawfulness recur­
ring in the future. That interest in 
bringing proceedings follows from the 
first paragraph of Article 233 EC under 
which the institutions whose act has 
been declared void are to be required to 
take the necessary measures to comply 
with the judgment of the Court. How­
ever, that interest in bringing proceed­
ings can only exist if the alleged 
unlawfulness is liable to recur in the 
future independently of the circum­
stances of the case which gave rise to 
the action brought by the appellant. 
That applies to an action for annulment 
brought by an official against the rejec­
tion of his candidature for a vacant post, 
and against the appointment of another 
official, in circumstances where, in the 
course of the proceedings, the adminis­
tration has made that post subject to 
retirement in the interests of the service 
pursuant to Article 50 of the Staff 
Regulations and organised a new selec­
tion procedure, thereby rendering the 
contested decisions obsolete in so far as 
I - 4334 
WUNENBURGER v COMMISSION 
the appellant challenges the procedure 
which led to the initial appointment 
being made. In contrast to the substan­
tive assessment of the various candida­
tures for a given post to be filled, the 
methods of a selection procedure are 
likely to be repeated in the future in 
similar procedures, with the result that 
the appellant retains his interest in 
bringing an action against the contested decisions, even though they have no 
effect with regard to him, in view of 
future candidatures for posts such as the 
post at issue. 
(see paras 47-52, 58-60) 
I - 4335