CELEX: C2007/082/25
Language: en
Date: 2007-04-14 00:00:00
Title: Case C-16/07 P: Appeal brought on 22 January 2007 by Marguerite Chetcuti against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 8 November 2006 in Case T-357/04: Chetcuti v Commission

14.4.2007   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 82/13
            
         Appeal brought on 22 January 2007 by Marguerite Chetcuti against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 8 November 2006 in Case T-357/04: Chetcuti v Commission
   (Case C-16/07 P)
   (2007/C 82/25)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties
   
      Appellant: Marguerite Chetcuti (represented by: M.-A. Lucas, avocat)
   
      Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought
   
               —
            
            
               set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities (Fourth Chamber) of 8 November 2006 in Case T-357/04 Chetcuti v Commission;
            
         
               —
            
            
               grant the form of order sought by the appellant before the Court of First Instance and therefore:
               
                           —
                        
                        
                           annul the decision of the competition selection board of 22 June 2004 rejecting, on the basis of point III of competition notice COM/PA/04 of 6 April 2004, the appellant's candidature;
                        
                     
                           —
                        
                        
                           annul the subsequent acts of the competition procedure, and in particular the list adopted by the selection board of candidates meeting the conditions fixed by the notice of competition, the Commission decision determining on that basis the number of posts to be filled, the list of suitable candidates adopted by the selection board on completion of its task, and the appointment decisions taken by the appointing authority on that basis;
                        
                     
                           —
                        
                        
                           order the Commission to pay the costs at first instance;
                        
                     
         
               —
            
            
               order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings before the Court of Justice.
            
         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The appellant puts forward a single plea in law in support of her appeal, alleging infringement by the Court of First Instance of the concept of internal competition within the meaning of Articles 4 and 29(1)(b) of the Staff Regulations in the version in force at the time of publication of the competition notice, of the objective assigned to recruitment by Article 27 and the first paragraph of Article 4 of those regulations, and of the principle of equal treatment or, at the very least, of the obligation to state reasons.
   In that plea, the appellant asserts, in essence, that it is apparent from the case-law of the Court of Justice and the Court of First Instance that the expression ‘competition internal to the institution ’concerns all the persons in the service of the institution because of a connection under public law, including auxiliary staff, and that the Court of First Instance misconstrued that case-law and the meaning of the expression ‘internal competition ’by focusing on the main purpose of the competition, defined on the basis of subjective qualifications, rather than on its intrinsic nature, defined on the basis of objective conditions of admission to the competition stipulated in the competition notice.
   The appellant claims next that, whilst it cannot be denied that the appointing authority has wide discretion when specifying in the competition notice the conditions of admissibility to that competition, that discretion must always be exercised according to the requirements of the posts to be filled and the interest of the service, so that the argument that auxiliary staff can be excluded on the basis that, unlike officials and temporary staff, they have not had to prove, at the time of their initial recruitment, that they are of the highest standard of ability, efficiency and integrity cannot be accepted. Proof of such qualities must be apparent simply from success in the pre-selection tests and selection tests provided for by the competition notice. The same is moreover true as regards proof of aptitude to carry out the tasks of the posts to be filled.
   In the alternative, the appellant claims lastly that the judgment under appeal is inadequately reasoned in so far as the Court of First Instance did not respond to its argument that the competition notice contains an internal contradiction because that notice appears to exclude the candidatures of auxiliary staff, but to admit for the calculation of professional experience that acquired as a member of the auxiliary staff in certain function groups.