CELEX: 62008FJ0004
Language: en
Date: 2009-03-12
Title: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 12 March 2009. # Johannes Hambura v European Parliament. # Public service - Recruitment. # Case F-4/08.

JUDGMENT OF THE CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL 
      (Second Chamber)
      12 March 2009 
      Case F-4/08
      Johannes Hambura
      v
      European Parliament
      (Civil service – Temporary staff – Recruitment – Selection procedure – Non‑admission – Recruitment notice PE/95/S – Failure to use the application form in the Official Journal of the European Union – Admissibility – Prior administrative procedure)
      Application: brought under Articles 236 EC and 152 EA, in which Mr Hambura seeks annulment of the Parliament’s decision of 5 December 2007
         not to accept his application to become a member of the temporary staff in the post of doctor advertised in recruitment notice
         PE/95/S (OJ C 244 A of 18 October 2007, p. 5).
      
      Held: The action is dismissed. The applicant is ordered to pay all the costs.
      
      Summary
      1.      Officials – Competitions – Conditions for admission – Fixing by the competition notice – Administration's discretion
      (Staff Regulations, Annex III)
      2.      Procedure – Application initiating proceedings – Formal requirements – Detailed statement of the pleas and arguments relied
            on before the Civil Service Tribunal
      (Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 21, first para., and Annex I, Art. 7(3); Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal,
            Art. 35(1)(e))
      1.      Notwithstanding its discretion, the selection board is bound by the wording and in particular by the conditions for admission
         laid down by the notice of competition. The same applies, in principle, to the administration, which is thus obliged to comply
         with the conditions for admitting applications if it is not to infringe the principle of equal treatment.
      
      (see para. 46)
      See:
      T-145/02 Petrich v Commission [2004] ECR-SC I‑A‑101 and II‑447, para. 34
      
      F-12/05 Tas v Commission [2006] ECR-SC I‑A‑1‑79 and II‑A‑1‑285, para. 43
      
      2.      Under Article 35(1)(e) of the Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal the application must contain a statement of
         the pleas and arguments of fact and law on which it is based. Those particulars must be sufficiently clear and precise to
         enable the defendant to prepare his defence and to enable the Tribunal to give judgment in the action, if appropriate without
         having to seek further information. In order to guarantee legal certainty and the sound administration of justice, it is necessary,
         for an action to be admissible, that the basic legal and factual particulars relied on are indicated coherently and intelligibly
         in the text of the application itself. That is a fortiori the case since, under Article 7(3) of Annex I to the Statute of the Court of Justice, the written stage of the procedure
         before the Tribunal comprises, in principle, only one exchange of written pleadings, unless the Tribunal decides otherwise.
         The latter specific feature of the procedure before the Civil Service Tribunal explains why, unlike proceedings before the
         Court of First Instance or the Court of Justice, in accordance with the first paragraph of Article 21 of the Statute of the
         Court of Justice, the statement of pleas and arguments in the application cannot be in summary form. Such flexibility would
         have the effect, in practice, of rendering redundant much of the subsequent special rule set out in the Annex to the Statute
         of the Court of Justice.
      
      (see paras 49-50)
      See:
      T-85/92 De Hoe v Commission [1993] ECR II‑523, para. 20; T‑154/98 Asia Motor France and Others v Commission [1999] ECR II‑1703, para. 42; T-277/97 Ismeri Europa v Court of Auditors [1999] ECR II‑1825, para. 29
      
      F-1/08 Nijs v Court of Auditors [2008] ECR-SC I‑A‑1‑0000 and II‑A‑1‑0000, para. 25, on appeal before the Court of First Instance, Case T‑376/08 P