Summary
Parties
Subject of the case
Grounds
Decision on costs
Operative part
Keywords
1 . OFFICIALS - RECRUITMENT - COMPETITION - PRINCIPLES FOR SELECTION - SUCCESSIVE COMPETITIONS - OBJECTIVE CONDITIONS FOR ENTRY IDENTICAL - DIFFERENT INTERPRETATION ACCORDING TO NUMBER OF CANDIDATES - NOT ACCEPTABLE - DIFFERENT APPRAISAL OF SAME CANDIDATE IN SUCCESSIVE COMPETITIONS - PERMISSIBILITY - CONDITIONS
( STAFF REGULATIONS OF OFFICIALS , ANNEX III , ART . 5 )
2 . OFFICIALS - RECRUITMENT - COMPETITION - SELECTION BOARD - REJECTION OF CANDIDATURE - DUTY TO STATE REASONS - SCOPE
( STAFF REGULATIONS OF OFFICIALS , ANNEX III , ART . 5 )
Summary
1 . ALTHOUGH THE FACT THAT A LARGE NUMBER OF CANDIDATES APPLY TO TAKE PART IN A COMPETITION MAY JUSTIFY A RIGOROUS SELECTION BY MEANS OF ELIMINATORY TESTS IT CANNOT BE ACCEPTED THAT THE OBJECTIVE REQUIREMENTS FOR ADMISSION TO THE TESTS , WHICH ARE FORMULATED IN IDENTICAL TERMS , SHOULD BE GIVEN A DIFFERENT INTERPRETATION FROM ONE COMPETITION TO ANOTHER IN THE LIGHT OF THE NUMBER OF CANDIDATES . IN ANY EVENT , A CANDIDATE CANNOT FORM THE SUBJECT OF A LESS FAVOURABLE APPRAISAL THAN THAT MADE OF HIM IN A PREVIOUS COMPETITION , UNLESS THE STATEMENT OF THE REASONS ON WHICH THE DECISION IS BASED CLEARLY JUSTIFIES SUCH A DIFFERENCE OF APPRAISAL .
2 . ALTHOUGH IT IS PERMISSIBLE , HAVING REGARD TO THE LARGE NUMBER OF CANDIDATES , TO MAKE USE OF SUMMARIZED STATEMENTS OF REASONS FOR REFUSING TO ADMIT A CANDIDATE TO THE TESTS , A MERE REFERENCE TO THE CONDITION WHICH WAS NOT FULFILLED CANNOT SATISFY THE REQUIREMENT TO STATE REASONS WHERE SUCH A REFERENCE IS NOT CAPABLE OF PROVIDING THE PERSON CONCERNED WITH A SUFFICIENT INDICATION TO ALLOW HIM TO KNOW WHETHER THE REFUSAL IS WELL FOUNDED OR ON THE OTHER HAND WHETHER IT IS VITIATED BY A DEFECT WHICH WOULD MAKE IT POSSIBLE TO CONTEST ITS LEGALITY .
Parties
IN CASE 112/78
DOROTHEA KOBOR , NEE SONNE , AN OFFICIAL OF THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES , RESIDING AT 9 RUE PRINCIPALE , GOETZINGEN ( GRAND DUCHY OF LUXEMBOURG ), REPRESENTED BY LOUIS SCHILTZ , OF THE LUXEMBOURG BAR , WITH AN ADDRESS FOR SERVICE IN LUXEMBOURG AT THE CHAMBERS OF MR SCHILTZ , 83 BOULEVARD GRANDE-DUCHESSE CHARLOTTE ,
APPLICANT ,
V
COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES , REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL LEGAL ADVISER , RAYMOND BAEYENS , ACTING AS AGENT , WITH AN ADDRESS FOR SERVICE IN LUXEMBOURG AT THE OFFICE OF ITS LEGAL ADVISER , MARIO CERVINO , JEAN MONNET BUILDING , KIRCHBERG ,
DEFENDANT ,
Subject of the case
APPLICATION FOR THE ANNULMENT OF THE DECISION OF THE SELECTION BOARD FOR COMPETITION NO COM/B/155 REFUSING TO ADMIT THE APPLICANT TO THE WRITTEN TESTS RELATING TO THAT COMPETITION , NOTICE OF WHICH WAS PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL JOURNAL NO C 128 OF 1 JUNE 1977 , P . 10 ,
Grounds
1THE APPLICATION , LODGED ON 8 MAY 1978 , SEEKS THE ANNULMENT OF THE DECISION OF THE SELECTION BOARD FOR COMPETITION NO COM/B/155 , COMMUNICATED TO THE APPLICANT ON 23 SEPTEMBER 1977 , BY WHICH THE BOARD REFUSED TO ALLOW HER TO TAKE PART IN THE TESTS RELATING TO THE COMPETITION .
2THE COMPETITION WAS ORGANIZED BY THE COMMISSION FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONSTITUTING A RESERVE OF ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANTS IN GRADES 5 AND 4 OF CATEGORY B .
3THE DUTIES ATTACHING TO THE POSTS TO BE FILLED WERE DEFINED IN RELATION TO FOUR DIFFERENT AREAS , ONE OF WHICH WAS THE APPLICATION OF RULES OF ADMINISTRATIVE MANAGEMENT , FROM AMONGST WHICH THE CANDIDATES HAD TO INDICATE THEIR CHOICE .
4UNDER THE SPECIAL CONDITIONS FOR ADMISSION THE NOTICE OF COMPETITION PROVIDED THE CANDIDATES HAD , FIRST , TO HAVE COMPLETED A COURSE OF SECONDARY EDUCATION AND RECEIVED A FINAL CERTIFICATE AND , SECONDLY , TO HAVE AT LEAST ONE YEAR ' S PRACTICAL EXPERIENCE IN THE FIELD CHOSEN AFTER OBTAINING THEIR EDUCATIONAL QUALIFICATIONS .
5THE APPLICANT , WHO , IN APPLYING FOR THE POST , SELECTED THE FIELD RELATING TO THE APPLICATION OF RULES OF ADMINISTRATIVE MANAGEMENT , WAS REFUSED ADMISSION TO THE COMPETITION ON THE GROUND THAT HER PRACTICAL EXPERIENCE WAS INSUFFICIENT .
6IN SUPPORT OF HER APPLICATION THE APPLICANT CLAIMS THAT THE REFUSAL OF THE SELECTION BOARD IS EITHER THE RESULT OF MANIFEST ERROR OR OF AN ERRONEOUS ASSESSMENT AS REGARDS HER PRACTICAL EXPERIENCE .
7IN THAT REGARD SHE RECALLS , FIRST , THAT WHEN SHE TOOK PART IN EARLIER COMPETITIONS , IN PARTICULAR , IN COMPETITION NO COM/B/139 IN 1975 , WHOSE REQUIREMENTS IN THAT RESPECT WERE THE SAME AS THOSE LAID DOWN FOR THE COMPETITION IN QUESTION , HER PRACTICAL EXPERIENCE HAD BEEN CONSIDERED TO BE SUFFICIENT AND , SECONDLY , THAT THE PERIODIC REPORTS DRAWN UP WITH REGARD TO HER SINCE THEN STATED THAT SHE HAD PERFORMED CERTAIN DUTIES WHICH TESTIFY TO SUCH EXPERIENCE .
8FURTHERMORE , SHE CLAIMS THAT THE STATEMENT OF REASONS GIVEN FOR THE SELECTION BOARD ' S REFUSAL WAS INSUFFICIENT .
9IN ITS DEFENCE THE COMMISSION STATES THAT SINCE EACH COMPETITION CONSTITUTES A SEPARATE PROCEDURE THERE IS NO REASON TO COMPARE THE APPRAISALS MADE OF A SINGLE CANDIDATE BY DIFFERENT SELECTION BOARDS IN THE CONTEXT OF SUCCESSIVE COMPETITIONS .
10FURTHERMORE , IT IS CLAIMED THAT THE SEVERITY OF THE APPRAISAL IS DEPENDENT UPON THE QUANTITY AND QUALITY OF THE APPLICATIONS , WHICH INCREASE GREATLY YEAR BY YEAR .
11ALTHOUGH THE FACT THAT A LARGE NUMBER OF CANDIDATES APPLY TO TAKE PART IN A COMPETITION MAY JUSTIFY A RIGOROUS SELECTION BY MEANS OF ELIMINATORY TESTS IT CANNOT BE ACCEPTED THAT THE OBJECTIVE REQUIREMENTS FOR ADMISSION TO THE TESTS , WHICH ARE FORMULATED IN IDENTICAL TERMS , SHOULD BE GIVEN A DIFFERENT INTERPRETATION FROM ONE COMPETITION TO ANOTHER IN THE LIGHT OF THE NUMBER OF CANDIDATES .
12IN ANY EVENT , A CANDIDATE CANNOT FORM THE SUBJECT OF A LESS FAVOURABLE APPRAISAL THAN THAT MADE OF HIM IN A PREVIOUS COMPETITION , UNLESS THE STATEMENT OF THE REASONS ON WHICH THE DECISION IS BASED CLEARLY JUSTIFIES SUCH A DIFFERENCE OF APPRAISAL .
13IN THAT RESPECT THERE IS NO SUFFICIENT STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR THE REFUSAL TO ADMIT THE APPLICANT TO THE TESTS RELATING TO THE COMPETITION IN QUESTION .
14IN FACT , THE ONLY STATEMENT OF REASONS CONTAINED IN THE STANDARD LETTER IN WHICH THE SELECTION BOARD ' S REFUSAL WAS COMMUNICATED TO THE APPLICANT WAS A REFERENCE TO THE CONDITION WHICH WAS NOT FULFILLED .
15THE CONDITION LAID DOWN BY THE NOTICE OF COMPETITION , WHICH RELATED TO THE NEED FOR CANDIDATES ' ' TO HAVE AT LEAST ONE YEAR ' S PRACTICAL EXPERIENCE IN THE FIELD CHOSEN AFTER HAVING OBTAINED THEIR EDUCATIONAL QUALIFICATIONS ' ' WAS COMPOSED OF SEVERAL ELEMENTS , SO THAT A REFERENCE TO THE CONDITION AS A WHOLE WAS NOT OF SUCH A NATURE AS TO INDICATE WHICH OF THE FACTORS HAD BEEN FOUND TO BE LACKING .
16ALTHOUGH IT IS PERMISSIBLE , HAVING REGARD TO THE LARGE NUMBER OF CANDIDATES , TO MAKE USE OF SUMMARIZED STATEMENTS OF REASONS , A MERE REFERENCE TO THE CONDITION WHICH WAS NOT FULFILLED CANNOT HOWEVER SATISFY THE REQUIREMENT TO STATE REASONS WHERE SUCH A REFERENCE IS NOT CAPABLE OF PROVIDING THE PERSON CONCERNED WITH A SUFFICIENT INDICATION TO ALLOW HIM TO KNOW WHETHER THE REFUSAL IS WELL FOUNDED OR ON THE OTHER HAND WHETHER IT IS VITIATED BY A DEFECT WHICH WOULD MAKE IT POSSIBLE TO CONTEST ITS LEGALITY .
17THE SELECTION BOARD ' S REFUSAL MUST THEREFORE BE ANNULLED .
Decision on costs
COSTS
18UNDER ARTICLE 69 ( 2 ) OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE , THE UNSUCCESSFUL PARTY SHALL BE ORDERED TO PAY THE COSTS .
19AS THE DEFENDANT HAS FAILED IN ITS SUBMISSIONS IT MUST BE ORDERED TO PAY THE COSTS .
Operative part
ON THOSE GROUNDS ,
THE COURT ( SECOND CHAMBER )
HEREBY :
1 . ANNULS THE DECISION COMMUNICATED TO MRS KOBOR BY LETTER OF 23 SEPTEMBER 1977 BY WHICH THE SELECTION BOARD FOR COMPETITION NO COM/B/155 REFUSED TO ALLOW HER TO TAKE PART IN THE TESTS RELATING TO THAT COMPETITION ;
2 . ORDERS THE COMMISSION TO PAY THE COSTS .
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy