JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Third Chamber)

30 May 1995

Case T-289/94

Angelo Innamorati

v

European Parliament

‛Officials — Competitions — Rejection of candidature — Statement of reasons for the decision of the selection board in a general competition’

Full text in French II-393

Application for:

annulment of the decision of the selection board in Open Competition PE/59/A awarding the applicant a mark lower than the minimum required for the summarizing test and refusing to admit him to the other tests in that competition.

Decision:

Annulment.

Abstract of the Judgment

The applicant, a member of the auxiliary staff (Category A, Group II, Step 2) of the Commission, was a candidate in an open competition (PE/59/A).

\When he was informed that the Selection Board in the competition had decided to award him, in respect of the summarizing test, a mark lower than the minimum required and to refuse to admit him to the other tests in the competition, the applicant asked that his test be reconsidered and he be told the reasons for the marks awarded him by the Selection Board. The applicant's legal adviser asked the chairman of the Selection Board to specify the criteria used by the Board, including the instructions given to the examiners with regard to compliance with the particular conditions of the summarizing test.

The chairman of the Selection Board confirmed the Board's decision in the following terms:

‘On the basis of the parameters adopted and the strict criteria decided on by the selection board before marking — taking into account a number of factors set out moreover in the notice of competition — I regret to confirm that your mark in the (summarizing) test... is lower than that required in order to go through to the next stage.’

The Head of the ‘Competitions’ Unit of the Parliament also informed the applicant's adviser as follows:

‘Mr Innamorati has asked for his tests to be reconsidered. The Selection Board undertook that reconsideration, checking that no error had crept into the marking. It thus confirmed its original decision. The marking criteria used by the members of the Selection Board had been defined prior to marking and were complied with in accordance with the terms of the notice of competition. ’

Absence of reasons for the Selection Board's decision

The purpose of the obligation to state the reasons for any decision adversely affecting an official or other servant is to provide the person concerned with sufficient details to allow him to ascertain whether or not the decision is well founded and to make it possible for the decision to be the subject of judicial review (paragraph 26).

See: 195/80 Michel v Parliament [1981] ECR 2861, para. 22; T-115/89 Gonzalez Holguera v Parliament [1990] ECR II-831, para. 42; T-55/91 Fascilla v Parliament [1992] ECR II-1757, para. 32; T-27/92 Camera-Lampitelliand Others v Commission [1993] ECR II-873, para. 51

Where there is a large number of candidates in a competition, the Selection Board may initially notify candidates merely of the criteria and of the result of the selection process and at a later stage provide additional individual explanations to those candidates who expressly ask for an explanation (paragraph 27).

See: Michel v Parliament, cited above, para. 27; 225/87 Belardinelli and Others v Court of Justice [1989] ECR 2353, para. 7; González Holguera v Parliament, cited above, paras 43. 44 and 45; Fascilla v Parliament, cited above, paras 33 to 38; Camera-Lampitelli and Others v Commission, cited above, para. 51

In the present case, although the applicant expressly asked to be told the reasons on which the decision at issue was based, and also the criteria adopted by the Selection Board in assessing the summarizing test, the defendant's replies did not state any reasons for the decision and did not specify what the said criteria were. They did not therefore allow the applicant to determine whether the rejection of his candidature was well founded or enable the Court of First Instance to exercise its power of review (paragraphs 28, 29 and 30).

The total absence of a statement of reasons cannot be remedied by explanations provided by the defendant after an action has been started, since at that stage such explanations no longer fulfil their function (paragraph 31).

See: Michel v Parliament, cited above, para. 22; T-52/90 Volger v Parliament [1992] ECR II-121, paras 40 and 41 ; C-115/92 Parliament v Volger [1993] ECR I-6549. para. 23; T-18/92 and T-68/92 Coussios v Commission [1994] ECRSC II-171, paras 74, 75 and 76

Operative part:

The decision by which the Selection Board in Open Competition PE/59/A awarded the applicant a mark lower than the minimum required and refused to admit him to the other tests in the competition is annulled.