WRITTEN QUESTION E-0480/04 by Christopher Heaton-Harris (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Commission open competitions.
Date: 2004-02-23
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: European Commission, action for annulment (EU), case-law (EU), competition (EU), confidentiality, operation of the Institutions

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 84 E/413

This Manual further provides that:

Drivers must not be asked to provide services for private purposes where this creates overtime or
involves the driver in mission expenses, except where there are security grounds for so doing. Where
such grounds do not apply, the Member of the Commission may drive his official vehicle himself,
particularly on non-working days.

To date, no instances where service cars were used in breach of these rules have been established.

(2004/C 84 E/0482)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0480/04

by Christopher Heaton-Harris (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(23 February 2004)

Subject: Commission open competitions

Following a recent article in Le Figaro regarding the case of Jean-Louis Gibault, a French citizen who took
the Commission’s open competition in the field of external relations and management of aid to
non-member countries:

(cid:1) Could the Commission give details of why he scored 19,5 for the oral test and thus failed in his

application?

(cid:1) Why was the motivation for this mark not revealed to the applicant despite numerous requests?

(cid:1) Is the Commission involved in legal proceedings with Mr Gibault? If so please give details of the date

of the case.

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(29 March 2004)

The notice of the competition referred to by the Honourable Member in his question stipulated a pass-
mark of 20 points out of a total of 40 points. The applicant referred to in the Honourable Member’s
question achieved a mark of 19,50. Failure to reach the stipulated passmark is obviously a legitimate
reason for excluding a candidate.

Mr Gibault was informed of his marks. A series of precedents from the Court of Justice confirms that the
act of communicating the marks to the candidate is a sufficient explanation for the selection board’s
decision.

Article 6 of annex III of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communities stipulates that the
work of the selection board is secret. The Court of Justice and the Court of First Instance have repeatedly
upheld the need to safeguard the confidentiality of the deliberations of selection boards in order to
guarantee their independence, the objectivity of their work, and to protect them from any outside pressure
or interference. This has been confirmed in the judgement of the Court of Justice of 4 July 1996 in case
C-254/95 P, Parliament v. Innamorati and in the judgements of the Court of First Instance of 27 March
2003 in case T-33/00, Martínez Páramo and others v. Commission, of 25 June 2003 in case T-72/01 Pyres
v. Commission and of 23 January 2004 in case T-53/00, Angioli v. Commission.

Mr Gibault has contested his exclusion and is seeking the annulment of the open competition, or at least
the decision of the selection board, under case T/294/03. The case was lodged on 25 August 2003 and is
still pending.