JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Third Chamber)

21 November 2000

Case T-214/99

Manuel Tomás Carrasco Benítez

v

Commission of the European Communities

‛Officials — Recruitment — Access to internal competitions — Competition notice — Condition relating to length of service — Professional experience of the candidate’

Full text in French II-1169

Application for:

annulment of the decision of the internal selection boards for competitions COM/T/R/ADM/A/98, COM/R/5179/98, COM/R/5182/98, COM/R/5183/98, COM/R/5188/98 and COM/R/5190/98 not to admit the applicant to the tests in those competitions.

Held:

The application is dismissed. The parties are to bear their own costs.

Summary

Officials — Actions — Prior administrative complaint — Requirement that subject-matter and grounds be the same — Pleas in law and arguments not appearing in the complaint — Matter considered in detail by the appointing authority in the decision rejecting the complaint — Admissible

Where, in a decision rejecting a complaint, the appointing authority states its position in great detail on a matter which was not raised in the complaint, the argument put forward by the official concerned on that matter in the action brought before the Community court following rejection of his complaint must be declared admissible. Once the defendant institution has made observations on the matter in the course of the administrative procedure, it can no longer be considered that the failure to mention the matter in the complaint has undermined the principles of legal certainty and observance of the rights of the defence underlying the rule of consistency between the administrative complaint and the action. (see paras 37-38) See: T-78/96 and T-170/96 W v Commission [1998] ECRSC I-A-239 and II-745, para. 66

The wide discretion which the Staff Regulations confer on the institutions as regards the organisation of competitions must be compatible with the mandatory requirements of the first paragraph of Article 27 of the Staff Regulations according to which the aim ascribed to the recruitment procedure is to secure for the institution the services of officials of the highest standard of ability, efficiency and integrity, and of Article 29(1) of those Regulations. The choice to be made in the exercise of the wide power conferred on the appointing authority in that regard must, therefore, always be governed by the requirements of the post to be filled and, more generally, the interests of the service. In requiring ten years' service with the European Communities as a condition of admission to a competition intended to lead to the establishment of temporary staff in grades A 8 and A 3, the Commission exercised its discretion in a manner compatible with the interests of the service. Having a certain length of service, and thus significant experience within the Community institutions, constitutes a clear indication of the possession of the qualities required by the first paragraph of Article 27 of the Staff Regulations. Given the nature of the posts to be filled, which all involve high level administrative and advisory duties, the Commission also respected the limits of a reasonable exercise of its discretion. (see paras 52-56) See: T-56/89 Bataille and Others v Parliament [1990] ECR II-597, para. 42; T-40/96 and T-55/96 de Kerros and Kohn-Bergé v Commission [1997] ECRSC I-A-47 and II-135, para. 39; T-294/97 Carrasco Benítez v Commission [1998] ECRSC I-A-601 and II-1819, paras 41 and 43, and the case-law cited therein

A selection board is obliged to take into account only the documents which the candidates submitted to assess their professional experience in the light of the requirements laid down by the notice of competition. It is under no obligation to ask candidates to produce additional documents or to undertake research itself in order to ascertain whether the candidate meets all the conditions of the notice of competition. In that regard, it is clear from the second paragraph of Article 2 of Annex III to the Staff Regulations that it merely enables a selection board to request additional information from candidates if it is in doubt as to the exact significance of a document submitted, and there can be no question of transforming into an obligation that which the Community legislature viewed as a mere possibility open to the selection board in a competition. (see paras 77-78) See; C-255/90 P Burban v Parliament [1992] ECR I-2253, paras 16 and 20; T-54/91 Almeida Antunes v Parliament [1992] ECR II-1739, para. 40; T-215/97 Jouhki v Commission [1998] ECRSC I-A-503 and II-1513, para. 58