CELEX: 62008FJ0043
Language: en
Date: 2009-06-18
Title: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 18 June 2009. # David Spee v European Police Office (Europol). # Public service. # Case F-43/08.

JUDGMENT OF THE CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL 
      (Second Chamber)
      18 June 2009 
      Case F-43/08
      David Spee
      v
      European Police Office (Europol)
      (Civil service – Europol staff – Vacant post – Selection procedure)
      Application: brought under Article 40(3) of the Convention based on Article K.3 of the Treaty on European Union, on the establishment of
         a European Police Office (Europol Convention), and Article 93(1) of the Staff Regulations applicable to Europol employees,
         in which Mr Spee seeks annulment of the decision of the Director of Europol of 7 January 2008 rejecting his complaint and
         of the underlying decisions of 20 June 2007 and 6 July 2007 concerning the re-opening of a selection procedure to fill a First
         Officer’s post declared vacant on 25 July 2006.
      
      Held: The action is dismissed. The applicant is ordered to pay all the costs.
      
      Summary
      Officials – Europol staff – Recruitment – Candidate chosen by the selection committee not satisfying the criteria set out
            in the notice of vacancy 
      Although the Director of the European Police Office (Europol) does not have the power, under the principle of the independence
         of selection boards in competitions, to annul or amend a decision of a selection board, he is, however, required to eliminate
         any candidate who does not satisfy the criteria set out in the notice of vacancy, since the administration is bound by each
         of the criteria it has laid down in that notice. The Director cannot therefore be bound by decisions of the selection board
         the unlawfulness of which would be liable as a consequence to vitiate his own decisions. Consequently, the Director may decide,
         having been apprised that a selected candidate did not satisfy the requirements in a notice of vacancy, to initiate a fresh
         selection procedure.
      
      (see paras 45, 46, 48)
      See:
      142/85 Schwiering v Court of Auditors [1986] ECR 3177, paras 19 to 21; 322/85 and 323/85 Hoyer and Neumann v Court of Auditors [1986] ECR 3215, paras 12 to 14; C-35/92 P Parliament v Frederiksen [1993] ECR I‑991, paras 15 and 16
      
      T-153/95 Kaps v Court of Justice [1996] ECR-SC I‑A‑233 and II‑663, para. 78; T-143/98 Cendrowicz v Commission [1999] ECR‑SC I‑A‑273 and II‑1341, para. 39; T-45/04 Tzirani v Commission [2006] ECR-SC I‑A‑2‑145 and II‑A‑2‑681, para. 46