JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Second Chamber)

13 March 2002

Joined Cases T-357/00, T-361/00, T-363/00 and T-364/00

Justina Martínez Álarcon and Others

v

Commission of the European Communities

‛Officials — Internal competition — Non-admission to competition — Requisite professional experience’

Full text in French II-161

Application for:

annulment of decisions rejecting the applicants' candidatures for internal competition COM/TB/99.

Held:

In Case T-364/00: The decision of the selection board of 28 January 2000 rejecting Ms Van Weyenbergh's candidature for internal competition COM/TB/99 and the decision of the appointing authority of 9 October 2000 rejecting the complaint lodged by the applicant are annulled. The remainder of the application is dismissed. The Commission is ordered to pay the costs. In Cases T-357/00, T-361/00 and T-363/00: The applications are dismissed. The parties are to bear their own costs.

Summary

Notwithstanding its discretion with regard to the procedures for and content of the tests in a competition, the selection board is bound by the wording of the notice of competition as published. The basic function of a notice of competition is to give those interested the most accurate information possible about the conditions of eligibility for the post, in order to enable them to judge, first, whether they should apply for it and, second, what supporting documents are important for the proceedings of the selection board and must therefore be enclosed with the application. With regard, in particular, to a condition of admission relating to professional experience, the actual assessment of the level of that experience must take place within the framework established by the wording of the notice of competition and cannot in any way allow the selection board to add any condition which does not actually appear in the notice. (see paras 61-62) See: 225/87 Belardinelli v Court of Justice [1989] ECR 2353, para. 13; T-214/99 Carrasco Benítez v Commission [2000] ECRSC I-A-257 and II-1169, para. 69; T-95/00 and T-96/00 Zaur-Gora and Dubigh v Commission [2001] ECRSC I-A-79 and II-379, para. 47, and the case-law cited

The selection board enjoys, in principle, a discretion when assessing the previous professional experience of candidates, both as regards nature and duration thereof and as regards its relevance to the post to be filled. In the light of that discretion, it is for the Community judicature to consider whether the selection board made a manifest error in assessing the duration and level of the professional experience of the candidates not admitted to the competition. In carrying out that review, the Community judicature must bear in mind that, when deciding whether candidates are to be admitted or excluded, the selection board is entitled, as a rule, to limit its examination solely to the candidates' application forms and the documents enclosed with them and cannot be required to make enquiries itself to ensure that candidates satisfy all the conditions laid down in the notice of competition. (see paras 75-76) See: 9/76 Morello v Commission [1976] ECR 1415, paras 8 and 9; 417/85 Maurissen v Court of Auditors [1987] ECR 551, paras 14 and 15; T-133/89 Burban v Parliament [1990] ECR II-245, paras 31 and 34, confirmed on appeal by the Court of Justice in C-255/90 P Burban v Parliament [1992] ECR I-2253; Carrasco Benítez v Commission, cited above, paras 70 and 77, and the case-law cited