JUDGMENT OF THE COURT FOR FIRST INSTANCE (Second Chamber)

20 June 2001

Case T-243/99

Marie-Laurence Buisson

v

Commission of the European Communities

‛Officials — Open competition — Refusal of admission to the written tests — Admissibility — Act adversely affecting a candidate — Time-limit — Legitimate expectations — Compensation’

Full text in English II-601

Application for:

annulment of the decision of 13 July 1999 rejecting the applicant's request for reconsideration of the decision of the selection board not to admit her to the written tests forming part of the selection procedure in Open Competition COM/A/10/98, and for compensation for the nonmaterial damage suffered in that regard.

Held:

The claim for an order requiring the Commission to adopt certain measures and the claim for other or further relief are dismissed as inadmissible. The Commission is ordered to pay to the applicant the sum of EUR 1 in compensation for the nonmaterial damage. The remainder of the application is dismissed. The Commission is ordered to pay, in addition to its own costs, half of the applicant's costs.

Summary

Officials — Actions — Act adversely affecting the person concerned — Decision taken following reconsideration of an earlier decision — Decision adopted by a competition selection board after reconsideration as provided for by the notice of competition (Staff Regulations, Art. 90(2)) Officials — Actions — Act adversely affecting the person concerned — Decision taken following reconsideration of an earlier decision and taking account of new facts — Decision not confirmatory (Staff Regulations, Arts 90 and 91) Officiais — Actions — Subject-matter — Directions issued to the administration — Inadmissibility (Staff Regulations, Art. 91) Officials — Principles — Protection of legitimate expectations — Conditions

Since a request for reconsideration addressed to the chairman of the competition selection board may be regarded as a request for reconsideration in accordance with the notice of competition, it falls within a procedural framework which the institution has undertaken to abide by and which is therefore binding on it. Consequently, it is not the original decision but the decision following the reconsideration provided for which must be regarded as the act adversely affecting the applicant. (see paras 29-30) Since a letter from the chairman of the selection board expresses for the first time its position, taking account of a new fact put forward by the person concerned, the decision contained in that letter has been taken after genuine reconsideration and cannot be classed as a purely confirmatory act. (see paras 31, 32) See: T-186/98 Inpesca v Commission [2001] ECR II-557 A claim in an action for annulment brought under Article 91 of the Staff Regulations that a Community institution should be ordered to adopt certain measures is inadmissible. The Court of First Instance may not, in the exercise of its jurisdiction, issue directions to the Community institutions or assume the role assigned to them, since the jurisdiction of the Community judicature is limited to reviewing the legality of the contested measure. (see para. 37) See: T-145/98 ADT Projekt v Commission [2000] ECR II-387, paras 83 and 84 The right to rely on the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations, which is one of the fundamental principles of the Community, extends to any individual in a situation where the Community administration, by giving him precise assurances, has led him to entertain reasonable expectations. (see para. 45) See: T-66/96 and T-221/97 Mellett v Court of Justice [1998] ECRSC I-A-449 and II-1305, para. 104

Officials — Open competition — Refusal to admit to the written tests — Admissibility — Act adversely affecting a candidate — Time-limit — Legitimate expectation — Compensation (JUDGMENT OF 20. 6. 2001 — CASE T-243/99 - BUISSON v COMMISSION) II-601