Marie-Laurence Buisson v Commission of the European Communities.

• Jurisdiction: European Union
• ECLI: ECLI:EU:T:2001:167
• Court: General Court (European Union)
• Date: 20 June 2001
• Docket Number: T-243/99
• Procedure Type: Recurso de funcionarios - inadmisible
• Celex Number: 61999TJ0243

61999A0243

Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) of 20 June 2001. - Marie-Laurence Buisson v Commission of the European Communities. - Officials - Open competition - Refusal to admit to the written tests - Admissibility - Act adversely affecting a candidate - Time-limit - Legitimate expectation - Compensation. - Case T-243/99.

European Court reports - staff cases 2001 Page IA-00131
Page II-00601

Parties Grounds Decision on costs Operative part

Parties

In Case T-243/99,

Marie-Laurence Buisson, residing in Ankara (Turkey), represented by I. Forrester QC, E. Wright, Barrister, and F.M. Murray, Barrister, with an address for service in Luxembourg,

applicant,

v

Commission of the European Communities, represented by J. Currall, acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg,

defendant,

APPLICATION for annulment of the decision of 13 July 1999 rejecting the applicant's request for reconsideration of the decision of the selection board not to admit her to the written tests forming part of the selection procedure in Open Competition COM/A/10/98, and for compensation for the non-material damage incurred in that regard,

THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES

(Second Chamber),

composed of: A.W.H. Meij, President, A. Potocki and J. Pirrung, Judges,

Registrar: H. Jung,

having regard to the written procedure and further to the hearing on 21 March 2001,

gives the following

Judgment

Grounds

Facts

1 On 31 March 1998 a notice of an open competition for the recruitment of Commission administrators at Grade A7/A6 (COM/A/10/98; `the notice') was published in the Official Journal (OJ 1998 C 97 A, p. 23).

2 Section III of the notice set out the conditions of eligibility for the competition. These were: (A) general conditions; (B) knowledge of languages; and (C) special conditions relating to the age-limit, qualifications and professional experience.

3 Section IV.3 of the notice stated: `The selection board will draw up a list of candidates who meet the condition set out at III.C.1 above [relating to age] on the basis of the information provided by candidates on their application form and are therefore to be admitted to the competition and the preselection tests.'

4 Section IV.5 stated:

`On the basis of the preselection tests the selection board will draw up the list of candidates to be admitted to the written tests, i.e. those who both meet all the conditions for admission set out at III above and have obtained the 200 best results in the preselection tests.'

5 The first sentence of Section IV.6 stated: `Before candidates are admitted, their profile will be checked to ensure that it corresponds to the conditions specified in the notice of competition.'

6 Section V of the notice provided:

`Any candidate who feels that a mistake has been made regarding eligibility may ask to have his/her application reconsidered. Within thirty calendar days of the date postmarked on the letter stating that he/she has not been admitted to the competition, the candidate should send a letter quoting the number of the competition (COM/A/10/98) to the chairman of the selection board ...'

7 Section VIII.1 of the notice stated:

`The following candidates will be admitted to written tests (e) and (f): the 200 candidates who meet the conditions for admission set out at III above and have obtained the highest marks in the preselection tests; they must have obtained a pass mark in each test.'

8 The applicant submitted her application for the competition within the prescribed period. Her application was accepted and she participated in the preselection tests held on 14 September 1998 and 2 February 1999.

9 By letter of 30 April 1999, which the applicant duly received, the chairman of the competition selection board informed her of the following:

`The selection board for the abovementioned competition has now completed the marking of the preselection tests which you sat.

I am pleased to inform you that the marks which you received for those tests, in accordance with Sections IV.5 and VIII.1 of the competition notice, place you among the candidates whose applications will now be examined by the selection board. The purpose of this examination is to ensure that all the conditions of eligibility, set out in Section III of the notice, have been complied with.

The written tests will be held on 16 July 1999. You will be informed later as to whether you have been admitted.'

10 On 5 May 1999 the chairman of the selection board sent, by ordinary mail, a fresh letter to the applicant, which had the following heading in bold type: `THIS LETTER CANCELS AND REPLACES THAT SENT ON 30 APRIL 1999'.

11 The letter then stated as follows:

`The selection board for the abovementioned competition has now completed the marking of the preselection tests which you sat.

I am pleased to inform you that the selection board will now examine the applications, as provided for by Section IV.6 of the competition notice. Thereafter, and in accordance with Section VIII.1 of that notice, the selection board will draw up the list of candidates who have obtained the 200 highest marks and satisfy the conditions of admission provided for by the competition notice.

At the beginning...