EN
ReportsofCases
ECLI:EU:F:2010 :111 1JUDGMENT O F THE CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL
(Third Ch amber)
29 September 2010
Case F-5/08
Markus Brune
v
European Comm ission
(Civil service — Open compe tition — Non-inclusion on th e reserve list — Conduct of the oral test — 
Stable nature of the composition o f the selection b oard)
Application:brought u nder Articles 236 E C and 152 E A, in w hich M r Brune seeks, principally, 
annulment of the Commission’s decision o f 10 May 2007 no t to place him on th e reserve 
list in open compe tition E PSO/AD/26/05 a nd of the decision o f 2 October 2007 r ejecting 
his complaint.
Held: The Commission’s decision o f 10 May 2007 no t to place the applicant on th e reserve list 
in compe tition E PSO/AD/26/05 is annulled. The Commission i s ordered to pay all th e 
costs.
Summ ary
Officials — Competitions — Selection board — Composition
(Staff Regulations, Annex III, Art. 3)
In order to ascertain whether the procedure followed in the oral tests of a c ompe tition s atisfied the two 
basic requirements of objectivity and equality in th e appraisal of candida tes, an overall examination 
must be made of the organisation o f the oral tests in th e particular circumstances of the case, having 
regard t o all th e relevant factors. Those factors include, among others, the number of candida tes 
admitted to th e tests, fluctuations in th e composition o f the selection b oard, with a p articular focus 
on w hether the chairman of the selection b oard a nd, where appropriate, his alternate were present, 
and the coordination me asures taken to ensure the consistent application o f the marking criteria.
Absences of the chairman of the selection b oard i n an open compe tition w ith a l arge number of 
candida tes are no t, taken in isolation, such as to justify the annulment of a d ecision o f the selection 
board w here those absences were limited in number and where, during those absences, the selection 
board w as chaired by the alternate chairman, who had b een present, with th e chairman, at the vast 
majority of the tests, thus ensuring continuity in th e chairing of the selection b oard. The chairman’s 
absences m ust be weighed against the other relevant factors in order to determine whether th e 
composition o f the selection b oard w as sufficiently stable.
2 ECLI:EU:F:2010 :111SUMM ARY—CASEF-5/08
BRUN EvCOMM ISSION
Regardless of whether the chairman of the selection b oard a ttended the tests, the regular attendance of 
a sufficient number of examiners is required to ensure consistent marking and th e comparative 
appraisal of th e candida tes. However, in view o f th e di fficulties associated w ith o rganising a 
compe tition w ith a l arge number of candida tes, in order for the selection b oard t o contain a c ore of 
examiners able to provide sufficient stability, it is no t necessary for the mem bers of that core to have 
attended all th e tests. In th at respect, an alternate mem ber of a c ompe tition s election b oard m ay 
replace a f ull mem ber when th e latter is absent. However, where the attendance rate of full mem bers 
is particularly low, such absences must be justified.
Where the core of examiners who attended th e tests was confined to th e chairman of the selection 
board a nd his alternate, since the other selection b oard mem bers did no t attend a s ufficient number 
of tests and no id entical formation a ttended a l arge number of oral tests, the composition o f the 
selection b oard i s no t stable enough to ensure compliance with th e principles of objectivity in 
marking and equal treatment, and th is m ust be classified, in view o f th e importance of th ose 
principles, as an infringement of essential procedural requirements. In such a s ituation w here th e 
composition o f the selection b oard i s no t stable, the fact th at th e alternate chairman attended, 
together with th e chairman, the first part of the tests in order to compare how th e appraisal criteria 
were applied, and th e fact that the selection b oard a greed th e appraisal rules in ad vance cannot be 
regarded as circumstances guaranteeing consistent marking.
(see paras 44, 52, 53, 56, 62-63)
See:
T-100/04 G iannini v C omm ission [2008 ] ECR-SC I-A-2-9 and II-A-2-37, paras 205, 209 t o 212 a nd 215
F-22/05 N eophytou v C omm ission [2006 ] ECR-SC I-A-1-159 a nd II-A-1-617, paras 44 a nd 56