C-178/78

defendant,

APPLICATION in particular for the annulment of Open Competition No COM/A/154 based on tests, which was organized by the Commission in order to constitute a reserve of administrators in Grades 7 and 6 of Category A (Official Journal C 213 of 7 September 1977, p. 9),

THE COURT (Second Chamber)

composed of: Lord Mackenzie Stuart, President of Chamber, M. Sørensen and A. Touffait, Judges,

Advocate General: F. Capotorti Registrar: A. Van Houtte

gives the following

7 September 1977, p. 9) the Commission tests and gave the following reason for organized an open competition, based on the refusal: "your qualifications were not tests, to constitute a reserve of considered adequate" (the formula used administrators in Grades 7 and 6 of in the standard letter). Category A. The duties relating to the posts to be filled are in the following fields: general administration, administration of research activities, In 1959 the applicant began studying external relations, information, financial Law at the University of London and budgetary affairs and social affairs. (Holborn College) but subsequently gave up his studies in order to work as a The application form contained a special journalist. He also attended evening section in which the candidate had to classes, in particular, in transport, indicate which of the six fields he had economics, philosophy and public chosen. The "special conditions" relations. In addition, he took part suc­ contained in the notice of competition cessfully in a course of administrative required university education, with and financial management organized by degree of diploma, in a field appropriate the Commission under the aegis of the to the option chosen and, in addition, University of Louvain. "at least one year's practical experience, obtained after graduation" relevant to the option chosen. As regards the first condition they also provided that "the By memorandum of 10 January 1978, selection board will allow for differences received at the Secretariat General on 17 in national education systems". January, the applicant lodged a complaint with the Commission under Article 90 (2) of the Staff Regulations of 2. The applicant, who is a British Officials against the refusal of his national, is employed by the application.

1. The applicant maintains, first, that the decision to reject his application II — Conclusions of the parties conflicts with the second paragraph of Article 25 of the Staff Regulations, since 1. The applicant claims that the Court the reasons on which it is based are not should. stated sufficiently clearly. In fact, the statement of those reasons does not (i) Declare that, in this instance, in the make clear which qualifications were recruitment and competition pro­ cedure the Commission is bound considered to be inadequate or insufficient. strictly to apply the second subpara­ graph of Article 5 (1) of the Staff The applicant also maintains that the Regulations; wording of the notice of competition in dispute is not in accordance with the (ii) Declare that inasmuch as they second subparagraph of Article 5 (1) and require a university degree or Article 27 of the Staff Regulations. diploma the special conditions relating to Competition No COM/ The applicant considers that by using the A/ 154 are contrary to the Staff word "or" the former provision provides Regulations and must therefore be that university education is equivalent to annulled and declared void; equivalent professional experience.

(iii) In the alternative, declare that the However, the notice of competition applicant was wrongly refused stipulated as a condition for admission that the candidates must have both a admission to the competition by the selection board since no allowance "University education, with degree or was made with regard to him for diploma", and "at least one year's differences in national education practical experience, obtained after systems; graduation".

refers to the draft proposal for a that context he refers to the directive drawn up by the -Commission qualifications listed in his application on the co-ordination of certain form and in the annexes thereto and provisions laid down by law, regulation emphasizes that he is an active member or administrative action concerning the of the Institute of Journalists, which has performance of activities related to jour a Royal Charter, and of the Institute of nalism under the professional Public Relations. The qualifications qualification in journalism (doc. XIV/ required in order to become a full 366/71 Rev. 1). member of that institute recognize that university education is strictly equivalent to the professional and practical In that context the applicant then points experience of which the applicant is able out that the course which he followed at to provide evidence. Thus, as regards the the University of Louvain was "started in applicant, not only was no allowance order to prepare officials to face the tests made for the difference emphasized in held in internal or open competitions the notice of competition which exists organized for the purpose of constituting between the national education systems reserve lists for administrative but it was not even necessary to make allowance for such differences with appointments". The applicant wonders what the value of that course is if the regard to him, since the applicant officials who have successfully followed possessed a practical qualification which it are refused admission to competitions. in his country of origin was equivalent to a university education with degree or

There even if it is evidence of a qualification. is thus violation of the principle of equality acknowledged in Article 27. In that context the applicant refers to the The applicant considers that he has Commission's reply of 4 March 1977 to shown that his education is strictly Written Question No 857/76 submitted equivalent to university education. In to the European Parliament by Mr

The Commission also maintains that As regards the draft proposal for a Article 5 of the Staff Regulations directive on journalism referred to by the provides for a general classification of applicant the Commission points out that posts and does not in any way affect it is a working document which is recruitment procedures, since the obsolete and that the work in connexion detailed rules relating to competitions with it was abandoned a long time ago. are laid down in Article 29 et seq and in It recalls that alone as regards the right Annex III to the Staff Regulations. to use the title of journalist Article 2 of that preliminary draft emphasizes the The Commission maintains that, taken as importance of a "diploma, certificate or a whole, those provisions of the Staff qualification covering a course of study Regulations form a general framework of at least two years and involving at which is intended to guide the least 1 800 hours of theoretical and appointing authority in the organization practical instruction" or of a "University of its departments and, in particular, in degree or diploma covering a course of fixing the conditions for the recruitment study of at least two years". of its staff. Outside the limits expressly The Commission does not see how the fixed by the Staff Regulations the appointing authority has sole power to notice of competition in dispute infringes appraise the conditions relating to Article 27 of the Staff Regulations. It degrees or diplomas, or indeed to the considers that its requirement of a equivalent practical experience, which complete university education, with must be required of candidates in order degree or diploma, within the context of for them to be able to take part inter alia an open competition for the recruitment in an open competition held in order to of young officials in Category A is constitute a reserve for future recruit­ perfectly in accordance with that article. ment. In the Commission's view the fact that the applicant is a member of two According to the Commission the notice institutes which, in the United Kingdom, of competition in dispute validly are involved with professional organiz­ stipulated as a special condition of ations and not university education, is admission that candidates must have irrelevant. both a "University education, with degree or diploma" and "at least one Finally, the Commission maintains that year's practical experience, obtained the very general criticisms concerning the after graduation". recruitment policy traditionally followed

JUDGMENT OF 2. 10. 1979 — CASE 178/78

3 That complaint however cannot be accepted. As the Court has already held in its judgment of 5 April 1979 in Case 117/78, Orlandi v Commission of the European Communities, the provisions of Article 5 of the Staff Regulations seek to provide a general definition of the minimum level required for an official of the category in question drawn up according to the nature of the duties to which the posts correspond and do not concern conditions of re­ cruitment. Those are governed by the provisions of Article 29 and Annex III to the Staff Regulations and there is nothing to prevent this notice of competition from fixing conditions in relation to certain posts or certain categories of posts which are more rigorous than those which correspond to the minimum requirements resulting from the classification of posts, whether such conditions are fixed in order to fill a specific vacant post or for the purpose of constituting a reserve with which to fill posts in a certain category.

4 The second complaint is based upon the first paragraph of Article 27 of the Staff Regulations, according to which:

"Recruitment shall be directed to securing for the institution the services of officials of the highest standard of ability, efficiency and integrity, recruited on the broadest possible geographical basis from among nationals of Member States of the Communities."

The applicant maintains that that provision was infringed since by requiring possession of a university degree or diploma the Commission ruled out in advance the possibility of recruiting a candidate such as the applicant who, as a result of his practical experience, has the abilities necessary for the post to be filled.

8 Finally, the applicant contests the refusal of the selection board on the ground that no sufficient statement of reasons was given for the decision. It is true that in certain other cases relating to the same competition (judgment of 30 November 1978 in Joined Cases 4, 19 and 28/78, Salerno and Others v Commission of the European Communities [1978] ECR 2403) the Court held that inadequate reasons were given for a refusal which contained, as the only statement of the reasons on which it was based, a mere reference to an item in a standard letter. In those cases it was impossible to discover to which of the components making up the conditions required the reference related. In this instance, on the other hand, there can be no doubt that it is the lack of any university degree or diploma which is the reason for the refusal and it is, moreover, in that sense that the applicant himself understood it. In those circumstances the statement of reasons given in this instance cannot be declared inadequate.

9 As none of the submissions has been upheld the application must be dismissed.

JUDGMENT OF 2. 10. 1979 — CASE 178/78

Costs

10 Under Article 69 (2) of the Rules of Procedure, the unsuccessful party shall be ordered to pay the costs. As the applicant has failed in his submissions he must be ordered to pay the costs.

However, under Article 70 of the Rules of Procedure, in proceedings by servants of the Communities, the institutions shall bear their own costs.

Delivered in open court in Luxembourg on 2 October 1979.

A. Van Houtte A. J. Mackenzie Stuart Registrar President of the Second Chamber