CELEX: 62002TJ0277
Language: en
Date: 2004-04-28 00:00:00
Title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance (single Judge) of 28 April 2004. # Athanacia-Nancy Pascall v Council of the European Union. # Officials - Open competition - Oral test - Omission from the reserve list - Action for annulment. # Case T-277/02.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Single Judge)
      28 April 2004
      Case T-277/02
      Athanacia-Nancy Pascall
      v
      Council of the European Union
      (Officials – Open competition – Oral test – Omission from the reserve list – Action for annulment)
      Full text in French II - 0000
      Application:         for annulment of the decision of the selection board for competition Council/A/393 for the drawing-up of a reserve list of
         administrators of Greek mother tongue to award the applicant lower marks than the minimum required for her oral test and not
         to place her on the reserve list.
      
      Held:         The application is dismissed. The Council is ordered to bear its own costs and to pay a quarter of the applicant’s costs.
         The applicant is ordered to bear three quarters of her own costs.
      
      Summary
      1.     Officials – Competitions – Selection board – Decision not to include a candidate on the reserve list – Obligation to state
            reasons – Scope – Observance of the secrecy of the selection board’s proceedings – Selection board’s use of intermediate marking
            – Communication of intermediate marks – Compatibility with observance of secrecy of proceedings
      (Staff Regulations, Art. 25, second para.; Annex III, Art. 6)
      2.     Procedure – Measures of organisation of procedure – Court’s request to communicate to a candidate in a competition the intermediate
            marks awarded to him by the selection board 
      (Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Arts 64 and 65)
      3.     Officials – Decision adversely affecting an official – Rejection of candidature – Obligation to give a statement of reasons
            at the latest when rejecting a complaint – Insufficient statement of reasons – Regularisation during the course of the proceedings
            before the Court 
      (Staff Regulations, Art. 25, second para.)
      4.     Officials – Competitions – Assessment of candidates’ abilities – Discretion of the selection board – Judicial review – Limits
            
      5.     Officials – Competitions – Assessment of candidates’ knowledge of languages by the selection board – Comparative assessment
            – Language certificates or staff reports not relevant
      1.     As regards decisions taken by a selection board in a competition, the obligation to state reasons must be reconciled with
         observance of the secrecy surrounding the proceedings of selection boards by virtue of Article 6 of Annex III to the Staff
         Regulations. That secrecy was introduced with a view to guaranteeing the independence of selection boards and the objectivity
         of their proceedings, by protecting them from all external interference and pressures, whether these come from the Community
         administration itself or the candidates concerned or third parties. Observance of this secrecy therefore precludes both disclosure
         of the attitudes adopted by individual members of selection boards and disclosure of any factors relating to individual or
         comparative assessments of candidates.
      
      At the stage of the examination of the candidates’ suitability, the selection board’s proceedings involve tasks that are primarily
         comparative in character and are accordingly covered by the secrecy inherent in such proceedings. Communication of the marks
         obtained in the various tests therefore constitutes an adequate statement of the reasons on which the board’s decisions are
         based.
      
      Such a statement of reasons is not prejudicial to the rights of the unsuccessful candidates and it enables the Community judicature
         to carry out a judicial review appropriate for that type of dispute. The selection board enjoys a wide discretion, and its
         assessments are subject to review by the Community judicature only where there is a flagrant breach of the rules governing
         the selection board’s work.
      
      However, where a selection board has awarded intermediate marks for the candidates’ knowledge, the obligation to provide a
         statement of reasons entails the communication, at a candidate’s request, of the intermediate marks and the method used by
         the selection board to determine the final mark. The communication of that information does not entail either disclosure of
         the attitudes adopted by individual members of the selection board or disclosure of any factors relating to individual or
         comparative assessments of candidates. It is therefore not incompatible with observance of the secrecy of the selection board’s
         proceedings.
      
      (see paras 20-22, 27-28)
      See: 89/79 Bonu v Council [1980] ECR 553, para. 5; C-254/95 P Parliament v Innamorati [1996] ECR I‑3423, paras 24, 28, 31 and 32; T‑167/99 and T‑174/99 Giulietti and Others v Commission [2001] ECR-SC I‑A‑93 and II‑441, para. 81; T‑53/00 Angioli v Commission [2003] ECR-SC I-A-13 and II‑73, paras 68 and 70, and the case-law cited therein
      
      2.     If the intermediate mark awarded by a selection board to an unsuccessful candidate was not communicated to him notwithstanding
         his request, it is for the Court to ask for further details through measures of organisation of procedure. Because of the
         inadequate statement of reasons provided, that situation is different from one in which an unsuccessful candidate, without
         putting forward any evidence suggesting that the selection board has not followed the rules governing its proceedings, asks
         the Community judicature to take measures of organisation of procedure or measures of inquiry in order to obtain detailed
         information on the conduct of those proceedings; in such a situation there is no need, as a rule, to order such measures.
      
      (see para. 29)
      See: T-118/99 Bonaiti Brighina v Commission [2001] ECR-SC I‑A‑25 and II‑97, para. 51
      
      3.     Although the total absence of a statement of reasons for a decision cannot be rectified by explanations provided following
         the bringing of an action, since at that stage such explanations no longer fulfil their function, it is permissible in the
         case of an insufficient statement of reasons for further explanations to be provided in the course of the proceedings, thereby
         rendering a plea that the statement of reasons has been defective nugatory and thus no longer justifying the annulment of
         the decision in question.
      
      (see para. 31)
      See: T-71/96 Berlingieri Vinzek v Commission [1997] ECR-SC I‑A‑339 and II‑921, para. 79
      
      4.     The assessments made by a selection board in a competition when examining the candidates’ knowledge and abilities are comparative
         in nature. Those assessments are the expression of value judgments as to a candidate’s performance in the test. They fall
         within the wide margin of discretion accorded to the board and the Community judicature has no jurisdiction to review them
         unless the rules which govern the proceedings of the selection board have been infringed.
      
      (see para. 57)
      See: Angioli v Commission, cited above, para. 91
      
      5.     Neither a periodic report nor a language certificate constitute absolute proof of a given level of competence in a language.
         The assessment of candidates’ knowledge of languages in a competition is comparative in nature, so that documents such as
         a language certificate or a periodic report cannot be regarded as relevant for demonstrating that the applicant’s level of
         knowledge has not been correctly assessed in relation to that of the other candidates.
      
      (see para. 59)
      See: T-153/95 Kaps v Court of Justice [1996] ECR-SC I‑A‑233 and II‑663, para. 54