3

The further background to the dispute is set out in paragraphs 8 to 24 of the judgment under appeal, as follows: ‘8 The applicant was successful in the written test and, on 22 March 2010, received an invitation to the oral test to be held on 15 April 2010, that is to say, the third day the oral tests were taking place. 9 At the oral test of 15 April 2010, the selection board consisted of its three full members. Two alternate members were also present on that day. 10 On 14 July 2010, EPSO informed the applicant, through his electronic EPSO account, that he had obtained only 23.5 points out of 50 points in the oral test, that mark not being sufficient, in so far as the pass mark was 25 points, and that, consequently, he could not be included in the reserve list of the competition. 11 By an e-mail and a letter of 20 July 2010, the applicant requested that his oral test be re-examined, and also requested additional information concerning his participation in that test. 12 The same day, 20 July 2010, EPSO sent the applicant an e-mail containing the final evaluation sheet of the oral test, dated 15 April 2010, accompanied by information stating that that was the only documentation that could be sent, all the other documents being covered by the confidential nature of the selection board proceedings. 13 On 28 July 2010, EPSO informed the applicant that his request for re‑examination would be processed as soon as possible, his file being temporarily unavailable due to the fact that EPSO was moving offices. 14 On 3 August 2010, the applicant supplemented his request for re‑examination by requesting a non-confidential version of the list of questions corresponding to the four criteria of the final evaluation sheet and the scale of grading for the interview. 15 On 24 August 2010, EPSO reiterated to the applicant that he had only the right to receive the final evaluation sheet, which had already been sent, and his original tests. 16 On 13 September 2010, the applicant sent an e-mail to EPSO seeking, first, confirmation that the final evaluation sheet for his oral test which had been sent to him by e-mail was the only document which he could receive and, secondly, to ascertain whether that evaluation sheet too was going to be sent to him by post, given that, on 28 July 2010, EPSO had informed him that information would be sent to him as soon as possible. 17 On the same day, 13 September 2010, EPSO confirmed to the applicant that the final evaluation sheet had been correctly sent to him, according to the department’s practice, and that it was not usually sent by post. 18 On 15 September 2010, the applicant supplemented his request for re‑examination of his oral test by setting out, in four pleas, the explanations and arguments relating to the breaches of procedure by which he claimed his interview with the selection board was adversely affected, and the related case-law. 19 On 8 October 2010, the applicant sent a new e-mail to EPSO containing the same arguments as those developed in his letter of 15 September 2010 and argued that there was another breach of procedure, relating to the composition of the selection board. In that e-mail, he also stated that EPSO had published the reserve list of the competition before the results of its re‑examination procedure were communicated. 20 On 13 October 2010, EPSO replied to the applicant that, if the re‑examination of his oral test were to culminate in the finding that the number of points he had received was above the pass mark, there was nothing to prevent his name being added to the reserve list for the competition. EPSO added, concerning the composition of the selection board, that both the quorum and the same number of members of each gender (in this case, two) had indeed been respected. 21 By an e-mail of 5 November 2010, the applicant requested that EPSO and the selection board act promptly in order to ensure that his oral test be re‑examined in a fair manner. 22 By a letter of 9 November 2010, EPSO replied to the applicant that the selection board, after the re-examination of his oral test and his various claims, rejected all the arguments put forward and confirmed its initial decision not to include him in the reserve list ... 23 On 7 February 2011 the applicant lodged a complaint against the contested decision under Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations. 24 The Director of EPSO, acting as the appointing authority …, rejected the applicant’s complaint by decision of 16 June 2011.’