JUDGMENT OF THE EUROPEAN UNION CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL

(First Chamber)

12 December 2013

Claudia Marenco

v

Research Executive Agency (REA)

‛Civil service — Temporary staff — Recruitment — Call for expressions of interest REA/2011/TA/PO/AD 5 — Non-inclusion on the reserve list — Validity of the selection procedure — Stability of the composition of the selection committee’

Application:

under Article 270 TFEU, in which Ms Marenco seeks, inter alia, annulment of the decision of 21 February 2012 by which the selection committee of the Call for expressions of interest REA/2011/TA/PO/AD 5 (‘call for expressions of interest’) refused to include the applicant on the reserve list at the end of the selection procedure.

Held:

The decision communicated by e-mail of 12 March 2012 to Ms Marenco by which the selection committee of the Call for expressions of interest REA/2011/TA/PO/AD 5 refused, after review, to include Ms Marenco’s name on the reserve list at the end of the selection procedure is annulled. The Research Executive Agency is to bear its own costs and is ordered to pay the costs incurred by Ms Marenco.

Summary

Officials — Competitions — Selection Board — Composition — Sufficient stability to ensure consistent marking of candidates — Criteria for assessment

(Staff Regulations, Annex III, Art. 3)

In view of the importance of the role and task of a selection board, any official or member of staff who is a member of a selection board must carry out, with all the necessary diligence, the tasks falling to him in that capacity. In particular, a full member of a selection board must, as a rule, attend the oral tests of a competition.

The broad discretion that a selection board enjoys as regards the determination of the arrangements for and detailed content of the oral tests of a competition or of a selection procedure must be counterbalanced by scrupulous observance of the rules governing the organisation of those tests. The selection board must therefore ensure that the principle of equal treatment of candidates is strictly observed when the oral tests are being carried out and that the choice it makes from among the persons concerned is objective. To this end, a selection board is required to ensure the consistent application of the assessment criteria to all candidates concerned, by ensuring in particular the stability of its composition.

However, it has been accepted that when securing the attendance of all the members of the selection board at all of the tests proves impossible or very difficult, the need to ensure the continuity of the civil service may justify relaxing the principle of the stability of a selection board, provided that the selection board takes the coordination measures necessary to ensure that the performance of candidates is consistently marked and compared.

As regards the coordination measures taken by the selection committee in order to ensure consistent marking and comparison of the candidates’ performance despite the fluctuation in its composition, in order to assess the merits of such measures, an overall examination must be made of the organisation of the oral tests in question, having regard to all the relevant factors, including the extent of the fluctuation and the level of attendance of the chairman of the selection board, which is a factor of the utmost importance having regard to the crucial role of coordination for which he is responsible.

(see paras 30-32, 36)

See:

29 September 2010, F‑5/08 Brune v Commission, paras 38 to 42, 55 and the case‑law cited