Judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 13 January 2021 –

ZR v EUIPO

(Case T‑610/18)

(Civil service – Recruitment – Notice of competition – Open Competition EUIPO/AD/01/17 – Decision not to place the applicant’s name on the reserve list for the competition – Composition of the selection board – Stability)

1. Officials – Competitions – Selection Board – Composition – Sufficient stability to ensure equal treatment of candidates, consistent marking and objectivity of the assessment – Scope – Consistent application of the assessment criteria to all the candidates in the oral tests (Staff Regulations of Officials, Art. 27 and Annex III, Art. 3) (see paras 37-39, 71)

2. Officials – Competitions – Selection Board – Composition – Sufficient stability to ensure equal treatment of candidates, consistent marking and objectivity of the assessment – Absence of some of the members of the selection board at each interview – Examination of candidates during the interviews by two members of the selection board – Justification by reason of the linguistic diversity of the candidates and the lack of availability of members of the selection board – Not permissible (Staff Regulations of Officials, Annex III, Art. 3) (see paras 44, 46, 47, 50-53, 56-60, 66-69)

3. Officials – Competitions – Selection Board – Composition – Sufficient stability – Need for measures of coordination such as to ensure equal treatment and a consistent and objective assessment of the candidates – Scope – Exchanges among the selection board members before, during and after the tests – Definition of the methodology and the assessment criteria before the tests – Coordinating role of the chairperson and of the vice-chairperson of the selection board – Studies and analyses to check the consistency of marking – Insufficient implementation of measures of coordination – Not permissible (Staff Regulations of Officials, Annex III, Art. 3) (see paras 72, 79, 81, 83, 91, 102, 105, 106, 108-110, 115, 116)

4. Officials – Competitions – Competition based on qualifications and tests – Assessment of the candidates’ merits – Review of applications – Comparative examination of the differences between the marks giving rise to the request for review and those which are abnormally low – No meeting of the selection board in its entire composition to adopt final decisions – Not permissible (see paras 87-90)

5. Officials – Competitions – Selection Board – Composition – Sufficient stability to ensure equal treatment of candidates, consistent marking and objectivity of the assessment – Absence – Infringement of essential procedural requirements – Consequences (Staff Regulations of Officials, Annex III, Art. 3) (see para. 118)

Re:

Action pursuant to Article 270 TFEU seeking annulment, first, of the decision of 1 December 2017 of the selection board for Competition EUIPO/AD/01/17 – Administrators (AD 6) in the field of intellectual property, not to place the applicant’s name on the reserve list drawn up with a view to the recruitment of administrators by EUIPO, second, of the decision of that selection board of 7 March 2018 rejecting the applicant’s request for review and, third, of the decision of EUIPO of 27 June 2018 rejecting the applicant’s complaint in accordance with Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of 7 March 2018, by which the selection board for Open Competition EUIPO/AD/01/17 refused, after review, to place ZR on the reserve list for the recruitment of grade AD 6 administrators in the field of intellectual property;

2. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;