C-18/64

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (SECOND CHAMBER) 14 JULY 1965­

Filippo Alvino and Others

and Jacqueline Benoit and Others

v Commission of the European Economic Community

Joined Cases 18 and 19/64

Summary

The original conclusions of the appli­ holders of such degrees. It is accept­

cants may be amended during the action able to require such experience to be in order to meet these requirements. How­ spread over a certain period.

Cf. paragraph 4, summary, judgment ever, as regards the length of this

in Case 13/57, Rec. 1958, page 265. period the duration of university 2. Or. paragraph 1, summary, judgment studies cannot be regarded as a

in Case 35/64. criterion.

In Case 18/64

applicants,

v

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY­ represented by ,

its LegalAdviser, Louis de la Fontaine, acting as Agent, assisted by Cyr Cambier, Advocate of the Cour d'appel, Brussels, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the offices of Henri Manzanarès, Secretary of the Legal Department of the European Executives, 2, place de Metz,

defendant,

In Case 19/64

Application for the annulment of the recruitment procedure (Competition No 165-A) held by the Commission in order to establish a reserve list of 120 administrators whose career brackets cover Grade 7 and 6 of Category A, and the resultant appointments;

THE COURT (Second Chamber)

composed of: A. M.Donner (Rapporteur), President of Chamber, W. Strauß and R. Monaco, Judges,

Advocate-General: J. Gand Registra : A. Van Houtte

gives the following

ALVINO v COMMISSION

will be held in order to establish a Candidates may be required to attend reserve list of 120 administrators whose an interview with the Selection Board career brackets cover Grades 7 and 6 in order to demonstrate that they of Category A. possess the knowledge of languages and The reserve list is intended to fill posts other skills necessary for the duties to

in that category and grade and for that be performed. type of duty which are at present vacant 3. Age: or are likely to become vacant or be created before 31 December 1964 and Candidates must be at least 24 years

which are not filled by the promotion of age on 1 January 1964. or transfer of officials already in the Candidates who wish to take part in service of the Commission of the EEC. this competition must submit their

The time-limit of 31 December 1964 applications to the Recruitment Division, may be extended. Competition Section, Office No 19, 4th Floor, Avenue de Cortenberg, before I — Nature of duties : Administrators 9 September 1963 at the latest. They Official engaged in planning, advisory will receive an acknowledgement.

and supervisory duties on the basis of Applications must be submitted on the

general Directives. Where appropriate special form which will be provided on

conditons: tions and took part in this competition. The applicants in Application 18 /64 1. Necessary qualifications and experi­

were advised that, after examination of ence: their qualifications, the Selection Board (a) Qualifications: considered that they could not be University education, supported by included in the preliminary list for a degree, or equivalent experience admission, (list of candidates who meet

in employment. the requirements set out in the notice

JUDGMENT OF 14. 7. 1965 — JOINED CASES 18 AND 19/64

of competition) as laid down by the auxiliary staff recruited after 1 first paragraph of Article 5 of Annex January 1962; III to the Staff Regulations of Officials. 5. To the extent necessary and as the The applicants in Application 19/64 Court shall see fit, declare null and were advised that the Selection Board void the express or implied decisions for the competition considered that they of .the Commission adopting the

could not be included in the list of results of the competition and the

organize Competition No 165-A; Order the Commission to give the

II — Conclusions of the Court all necessary information : parties 1. on the reasons why the Selection Board in Competition No 164-B (a After amending their conclusions during competition held in order to establish the course of the proceedings the appli­ a reserve list for future recruitment

cants claim that the Court should: for posts in Category B) considers

'1. Declare null and void Notice of itself unable to fulfil its task; Internal Competition No 165-A and, 2. on the vacant posts which Competi­

to the extent necessary, the decisions tion No 165-A was intended to fill:

taken to hold this competition and 3. on the appointments made on the

Admissibility position of the Selection Board and

the irregular procedure followed, The defendant claims that the present

and for the reasons set out in the applications are inadmissible for several application, with all the consequences reasons based on: that this entails both in fact and in (A) the collective nature of the applica­

law, in particular as regards the tions; appointments made on the basis of (B) their introduction out of time; the competition in dispute; (C) the lack of purpose, or of purpose

4. Declare null and void the inclusion recognized by law, in the applica­

in the list of suitable candidates of tions.

base their claims on situations which the list of suitable candidates of

can only be personal to each of them auxiliary staff recruited after 1 January and the irregularities referred to in the 1962 since Notice of Competition No proceedings of the Selection Board 165-A does not permit the participation

could only apply individually to each of auxiliary staff.

candidature and to the information The defendant refers to page 19 of

thereon. Staff Information Bulletin No 48, in The applicants reply that both the which it is stated that:

case-law of the Court of Justice and 'The following competitions are open that of the Conseil d'Etat of France in to members of staff the service of accept the concept of the admissibility the Commission of the EEC, that is of applications which have either differ­ to say, to officials, even if they belong ent subject-matter or are made by a to a lower group or category, and to group of applicants. They make no auxiliary staff'. individual submissions and bring no (C) According to the defendant the application which is not common to applications are inadmissible on the them all. They request the Court to grounds of lack of purpose and lack treat the applications as connected from of identification or of the unlawful the beginning and therefore, to the nature of such purpose. The applica­

but only in Staff Informa­ munities the complaints against the contested

tion Bulletin, which is a semi-official measures.

document. Moreover, should the notice (A) The notice of competition was

of competition 'be considered separable published and the competition organized

JUDGMENT OF 14. 7. 1965 — JOINED CASES 18 AND 19/64

without the preliminary preparation of was inapplicable in this case.

addition they were not brought to the application and does not allow excep­

notice of the staff. tions to foe made.

According to the defendant, this com­ (C) (In Case 18/64) By requiring that plaint and several of those following candidates possess experience equivalent

are inadmissible in that they are to a university education, supported by directed against a measure which, being a degree, the notice of competition

sub­ published more than three months strained the meaning of the second

before the application was lodged, can­ paragraph of Article 5 (1) of the Staff not now be contested. Moreover, it Regulations which, when prescribing considers the complaint to be unfound­ that Category A shall comprise eight

of which applicants became those provided for in the Staff Regula­ the aware

in the course of the proceedings and tions since, particularly in the case of against the competition in its entirety, competitions on the basis of qualifica­

were informed of tions, a 'university education'

since the applicants could only the outcome less than three months be assessed by the production of a

before filing their application. degree. (B) As intended

(B) As the

of the departments alone and does not according to the conditions laid down constitute a safeguard for the rights for this type of competition by Annex of officials. Thus, failure to observe this III. in­ formality could not adversely affect Whilst maintaining the objection of

the applicants. Moreover, since the pre­ admissibility, the defendant considers

paration of a reserve list concerned all this complaint to be unfounded, since departments, the provision referred to the interviews with the Selection Board

ALVINO v COMMISSION

were intended to verify the accuracy chairman of the Selection Board Directorates- of the declarations made by the candi­ belonged to one of the Admini­ dates as to their attainments. General concerned (that of

The applicants maintain that the stration) the majority of the members

intended to refer to open competitions have the significance given to them, for recruitment to minor posts. since the minutes of the 232nd Whilst still objecting that the complaint meeting of the Commission during was made out time, the defendant of which the very principles of these

nevertheless considers it to be unfound­ instructions were drawn up clearly ed, since no provision of Article 29 of stipulate that the latter 'shall not the Staff Regulations supports the inter­ prejudice any implementing measures pretation claimed. which the Commission may sub­ (F) The directives concerning the com­ sequently be led to adopt as regards

position of Selection Boards in com­ competitions, such as … the con­

petitions, drawn up by the Commission stitution of reserves for future on 19 June 1963 during its 232nd recruitment'; meeting and given on 21 June 1963, — the appointment or a ‘specialist’ is

were not observed as regards the com­ appropriate only in the case of an

position of the Selection Board for this examination in particular subjects

a reserve for future recruitment) plaint extends beyond the framework were not represented by two mem­ of an application for annulment since

bers of the Selection Board: the Court does not exercise unlimited

2. Contrary to Rule No 1 (3) none of jurisdiction. Although it is true that the

the members of the Selection Board Court has jurisdiction to check whether

designated by the appointing author­ in adopting the criteria of assessment

ity was a specialist from another in question the Selection Board misused Directorate-General or Department its powers, it cannot substitute its own

understand why the reports could not IV — Procedure be considered by the Selection Board. (I) Since the decisions of the Selection The procedure followed the normal

Board for the competition not to include course.

the applicants in the list provided for By order or 18 November 1964 the

in the first subparagraph of Article 5 Second Chamber joined the two cases

of Annex III to the Staff Regulations for the purposes of the procedure and

of Officials constituted decisions adverse­ the judgment.

ed by Article 29 et seq. of the Regula- and well founded.

Grounds of judgment

The present applications are made against Notice of Internal Competition No 165-A and various decisions by the Commission and by the taken both Selection Board during the competition procedure, including the decisions of the Commission consequent thereon.

The defendant maintains that the application is inadmissible on three

grounds.

By means of joint applications the applicants are contesting various measures which are in no way of equal concern to them.

procedure were published or communicated to the applicants more than three

months before the applications were lodged it is claimed that such applica­

tions are out of time.

Having regard to the close connexion between the different measures com­

prising the recruitment procedure, it must be accepted that in an action con­

testing later steps in such a procedure the applicants may contest the legality of earlier steps which are closely linked to them.

cruitment that it should be impossible to state, from the appointments pub­

lished, which of them resulted from Competition No 165-A.

As the applicants have expressly claimed the annulment of the above appoint­

ments without identifying them and as the defendant has submitted to the Court a list of the 55 appointments made before 31 January 1965 on the

basis of the competition in dispute, the subject-matter of the action appears

to be sufficiently clearly defined.

it regarded only experience obtained in employment over a period of six

by 'university education, sup­ years as equivalent to a qualification obtained

ported by a degree'.

In this respect it is clear from the report of the Selection Board produced by the defendant in a schedule to its statement of defence that in order to deter- mine the equivalence of the experience in employment of candidates not

possessing a university degree, the Board decided to establish two criteria

based first on the 'duration of equivalent experience in employment'

ment the Selection Board considered both their activities before their entry

into the service of the institution and their later activities within the institu­ tion. Equivalence was determined on the basis of the level and duration of

such activities. Having taken into account the normal duration of university studies and the practice followed in other competitions for Category A, the

Selection Board considered that the only activities capable of being regarded as equivalent to university studies were those performed over a period of at

least six years. Moreover, the level of these activities must be comparable to those of an official who has received a university education, supported by a degree, and who is engaged in performing duties appropriate to Category A, Regulations.' within the meaning of Article 5 of the Staff

In acting in this way the Selection Board seriously failed to appreciate the

ALVINO v COMMISSION

It is clear from its report that by insisting that the necessary experience

should have been obtained over a period of at least six years the Selection Board wished to establish a certain balance between this period and that

required for university studies.

On the one hand it is unreasonable to treat this period as the normal duration of university studies and on the other the Selection Board has adopted a

criterion which is completely foreign to the problem to be solved.

than the duration of university studies.

Thus, by introducing the requirement in dispute the Selection Board acted ultra vires in such a way as to vitiate the preparation of the list of candidates admitted to the competition.

The competition is therefore illegal and cannot provide a legal basis for appointments and promotions.

The appointments made by the Commission on the basis of the results of Competition No 165-A must therefore be annulled.

Application 19/64

Application 19/64 has lost its purpose as a result of the outcome of

Under the terms of Article 69 (5) of the Rules of Procedure where a case does not proceed to judgment the costs shall be in the discretion of the

Court.

Since Application 19/64 has lost its purpose no decision need be made on

the substance.

On those grounds,

Upon reading the pleadings; Upon hearing the report of the Judge-Rapporteur; Upon hearing the parties; Upon hearing the opinion of the Advocate-General;

4. Orders the defendant in Application 18/64 to pay the costs;

5. Orders that the parties in Application 19/64 shall bear their own

costs.

Donner Strauß Monaco

Delivered in open court in Luxembourg on 14 July 1965.

A. Van Houtte A. M. Donner Registrar President of the Second Chamber