C-111/83

JUDGMENT OF 30. 5. 1984 — CASE 111/83

on the other hand to provide the 5. In order for an official to bring person concerned with the .infor- proceedings pursuant to Articles 90 mation necessary to recognize and 91 of the Staff Regulations whether or not the decision is well against a decision of the appointing founded. authority, he must have a personal interest in the annulment of the measure in question. 4. A delay in the notification of an individual decision to the person An official who cannot himself validly concerned cannot entail the an- claim a vacant post, since he lacks nulment of that decision, since its the necessary qualifications, has no notification is an act subsequent to legitimate interest in the annulment of the decision and therefore has no the appointment of another candidate influence on its contents. to that post.

In Case 111/83

SANTO PICCIOLO,an official of the Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, assisted and represented by Victor Biel of the Luxembourg Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Mr Biel, 18 A Rue des Glacis, applicant,

EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, represented by Manfred Peter, Head of its Legal and Administrative Questions Division, acting as Agent, assisted by Alex Bonn, of the Luxembourg Bar, with an address for service at the Chambers of Mr Bonn, 22 Côte d'Eich, defendant,

APPLICATION for the annulment of the decision not to accept the applicant's candidature for a post of principal administrator (Career Bracket A 5/4) at the European Parliament and of the decision assigning the post to another candidate,

Facts and Issues

The facts of the case, the course of Service and the Service controlling the procedure and the conclusions, imprest accounts." submissions and arguments of the parties may be summarized as follows:

Qualifications and experience required:

"Very good knowledge of accounting I — Facts and written procedure procedures ...;

Experience in the field of computerized accounting; ..." 1. A post of principal administrator (Career Bracket A 5/4) was vacant in the Treasury and Accounts Division of the Directorate General for Administration, Personnel and Finance of the European According to Vacancy Notice No PE / Parliament. The Parliament therefore A/75 the post was open to officials of published Vacancy Notice No 3599 of the institutions 10 May 1982 for recruitment by transfer or promotion, pursuant to Article 29 (1) (a) of the Staff Regulations of Officials. According to the notice the closing date "in Grade A 5 or A 4 of the career for applications was 25 May 1982. bracket of Principal Administrator (transfer), or

2. On 18 May 1982 the Parliament sent a second vacancy notice for the same who have been in Grade A 6 for at least post (Vacancy Notice No PE / A / 75 ) to two years on the expiry date of this the other Community institutions with a notice (promotion)." view to filling the post by transfer, pursuant to Article 29 (1) (c) of the Staff Regulations. That notice repeated the text of Vacancy Notice No 3599, The closing date for applications in referred to above, word for word in response to the notice was 3 June 1982. regard to the duties and qualifications and experience required, that is:

4. With regard to Vacancy Notice No 7. On 1 July 1982 the Secretary PE / A / 75 , the applicant, Santo Picciolo, General sent the resolution of the Joint an administrator in Grade A 6 (eligible Committee to the Director General for for promotion) at the Publications Office Administration, Personnel and Finance, of the European Communities in Luxem­ emphasizing that "the very interesting bourg, submitted an application together suggestions of the Joint Committee in with his curriculum vitae. The latter regard to publicity" could not be contained inter alia a description of the adopted "in view of the urgency and applicant's experience, in particular of importance" of the recruitment in his duties at the Publications Office in question. regard to budgetary, commercial and analytic accounting and computerization. According to the Parliament the 8. By decision of the President of the applicant's was the only application Parliament dated 6 August 1982 David réceived in reply to Vacancy Notice No Youhg was appointed to the vacant post PE / A / 75 . as a probationary official in the third step of Grade A 5, with effect from 1 August 1982. It appears from the 5. The Secretary General of the Par­ preamble to the decision that it was liament decided, however, to adopt the taken recruitment procedure provided for in Article 29 (2) of the Staff Regulations in order to fill the post in question. To this " Having regard to Council Regulation end, by letter of 28 May 1982 he (EEC, Euratom, ECSC) No 259/68 of submitted to the Joint Committee a draft 29 February 1968 laying down Staff recruitment notice (No PE / 5 / S ) which Regulations of Officials of the European substantially followed the wording of Communities and the Conditions of Vacancy Notice No PE / A / 75 with Employment of Other Servants of these regard to the duties involved and the Communities, and, in particular, to qualifications and experience required. It Head III, Chapter One ; appears from the letter that Vacancy Notice No PE / 5 / S was "to be published in the Official Journal" and that the Having regard to the decision of the Secretary General had taken his decision Bureau of 12 December 1962 relating "in view of the very specific nature of to the authority empowered to make the post". appointments;

Since data processing at the European Declare that Mr Young's appointment Parliament has already reached a very under Articles 29 (2) of the Staff Regu­ lations is illegal and consequently annul advanced stage and will be developed it; significantly in the near future, that experience is indispensable for ap­ In any event order the European Par­ pointment to the post. liament to pay the whole of the costs. ..." 2. The European Parliament claims that the Court should : 10. On 22 July 1982 the Staff Committee made inquiries of the Declare that the action is neither President of the Parliament regarding admissible nor well founded; certain matters which had arisen in the Treasury Division, and in particular the Dismiss the action; circumstances in which the post for which the applicant had applied was Award the costs in accordance with the filled. The President replied on 13 applicable provisions of the Staff Regu­ September 1982, stating that "an offer lations. was made to Mr Young on 5 July 1982".

11. By an undated letter received by III — Submissions and argu­ the Parliament on 18 November 1982 the ments of the parties applicant submitted to the appointing authority a complaint within the meaning A — Admissibility of Article 90 (2) of the Staff Regulations.

1. The European Parliament emphasizes 12. The applicant received no reply to that the appointing authority committed his complaint, and on 15 June 1983 he no manifest error of assessment in brought this action. deciding not to accept the applicant's

JUDGMENT OF 30. 5. 1984 — CASE 111/83

B — Substance Moreover, the statement of reasons, in so far as it is possible to refer to it as such, was erroneous and contrary to the 1. The decision not to accept the facts. The applicant is acknowledged to applicant's application have considerable knowledge of com­ puterized accounting. In his present post he even deals with the computer (a) The applicant's arguments accounting of the Parliament.

The applicant argues that the decision Furthermore, the trust which the ap­ rejecting his application, contained in the plicant should legitimately have in the letter of the appointing authority of 20 appointing authority was profoundly August 1982, does not contain an shaken and disappointed. In the adequate statement of the reasons on applicant's view every candidate has the which it is based. right to have his application carefully considered. Here there was not even a pretence at such consideration. In the first place, the administration made its decision without examining the matter and in particular without con­ Finally, the administration acted contrary tacting the applicant. As a result the to the principle of proper administration assertion of the appointing authority that which requires that all the factors on his application did not fulfil the which a decision is based must be conditions on qualifications set out in the considered, as is necessary in order to vacancy notice is entirely unfounded. give priority to the interest of the service,

PICCIOLO / PARLIAMENT

First, and above all, the administration 2. The appointment of Mr Young was entirely able to assess, and in fact did assess, the applicant's qualifications on the basis of his application and sup­ porting documents, in particular his (a) The applicant's arguments curriculum vitae. Contact with the candidate would have provided no useful new or additional information. The applicant emphasizes that for the recruitment of officials other than those in Grades A 1 and A 2 Article 29 (2) of Secondly, the administration informed the Staff Regulations provides that a the unsuccessful candidate not only of recruitment procedure other than the the fact that he had not been accepted competition procedure may be adopted but also of the reasons for the appointing only "in exceptional cases ... for re­ authority's decision, regard being had to cruitment to posts which require special the nature and requirements of the post qualifications." Neither of these two to be filled. conditions was fulfilled in this case. On the one hand the Parliament has not shown what makes this case an exception Finally, the applicant's submission alleg­ to the normal recruitment situation, since ing lateness of the notification that he urgency does not in itself constitute the had not been appointed is inadmissible "exceptional case" referred to by the since it was not raised in the application Staff Regulations. Moreover, there was a originating the proceedings. It should limited number of candidates, so that the moreover be dismissed on its substance, selection board would have made a since in view of the circumstances the choice in a very short time. On the other notification sent to him cannot be hand, computerized accounting no considered to have been late. In any longer constitutes a special qualification event, even if there was some delay, it but is simply an area of higher studies did not adversely affect the applicant. open to any student of normal ability. The applicant adds that recourse to Article 29 (2) of the Staff Regulations is Furthermore, although the applicant an exceptional solution which must be stresses his knowledge of computer applied and interpreted restrictively.

Whilst it is true that the appointing applicable legal provisions, that is, Article authority has wide discretion, it is none 29 (2) of the Staff Regulations, were the less bound to state reasons for its correctly applied. In this regard the Par­ decision to apply Article 29 (2) of the liament maintains that the special Staff Regulations, to enable the Court qualification necessary was set out and to review its legality. The appointing emphasized in the successive vacancy authority in no way complied with this notices. Furthermore the Parliament requirement. refers in particular to the judgments of the Court of 26 May 1971 (Bode v Commission, Joined Cases 45 and 49/70, [1971] ECR 465) and of 29 October 1975 Marenco and Others v Commission, Finally, although it is true that the Joint Joined Cases 81 to 88/74, [1975] ECR Committee (formally) approved the 1247). adoption of the procedure of Article 29 (2) of the Staff Regulations, its agreement was given subject to conditions regarding publication, with which the appointing authority did not The applicant's submission is moreover comply. In this respect the applicant ill-founded, since the Parliament was emphasizes that in the course of the right to consider that posts in the field of exchange of memoranda and opinions data processing still constituted posts the appointing authority did not refer to requiring special qualifications, justifying the alleged urgency. adoption of the recruitment procedure of Article 29 (2) of the Staff Regulations. Although computerized accounting is taught in some universities, that fact in no way shows that there would be (b) The arguments of the European a sufficient number of European Parliament Community employees or of potential candidates in a general competition with knowledge of this subject for it to be considered that the qualifications required for a post in this field are no The Parliament considers that the longer special. In this regard the Par­ applicant's claim for annulment alleging liament refers to the fact that in this case the absence of the conditions for the only two applications from officials of adoption of the procedure of Article the institutions were received, the 29 (2) of the Staff Regulations is applications made pursuant to Vacancy inadmissible. In the Parliament's view it Notices No 3599 and No PE / A / 75 . is for the administration to decide whether those conditions exist and more particularly to decide whether a procedure for filling a post represents an "exceptional case" and whether Finally, the Parliament emphasizes that the vacant post requires "special the opinion of the Joint Committee, qualifications". As in other cases where given in its advisory capacity, did the administration has discretionary conclude that the adoption of the power, here the Court must review the procedure under Article 29 (2) was legality of the procedure followed by the justified, regard being had to the specific administration and thus the lawfulness of nature of the post in question. In the the methods adopted in the light of the Parliament's view the conditions in Staff Regulations. In this case the which the special procedure is carried

The Court asked the Parliament to By letter of 17 February 1984 the Par­ inform it in writing before 20 February liament replied to the questions put by 1984: the Court. In its reply the Parliament notes in particular that at the time when the vacant post of principal administrator 1. On what basis it considered that in applied for by the applicant, and the spite of the information given in the subject-matter of these proceedings, curriculum vitae attached to his was being filled, the Treasury-Accounts application, the applicant did not Division faced certain problems of meet the conditions laid down in personnel and of organization. Thus, as Vacancy Notice No PE / A / 75 ; a result of changes, the division in question had lost the assistance of two capable employees who had held 2. When, how and for what reasons the positions of responsibility. It was Parliament took the decision to apply therefore necessary to fill the vacant post the recruitment procedure provided as soon as possible. Furthermore, in a for in Article 29 (2) of the Staff Regu­ special report not long before, the Court lations; of Auditors had severely criticized the work of the Treasury-Accounts Division, going as far as to suggest disciplinary action against certain officials of the 3. If the notice of recruitment, of which division, and had recommended that the' a draft was supplied to the Joint appointing authority review and re­ Committee, was formally adopted, (a) organize the work of the division. In in what form it was adopted and (b) view of those difficult problems of whether it was the subject of any personnel and of organization the publication; procedure for filling the vacant post took on particular importance. The appointing authority had to consider and assess all 4. Whether the candidate appointed had the possibilities offered by the Staff himself made application, whether Regulations of Officials.

1. It was on the basis of the infor­ None the less the appointing authority mation provided by the applicant in his wished also to take advantage of any curriculum vitae that the selection possibilities of recruitment pursuant to committee appointed for the recruitment Article 29 (1) of the Staff Regulations, in in question considered that the candidate inviting applications from qualified can­ did not fulfil the essential qualification of didates. " experience in the field of computerized accounting", required in the vacancy notice. Even if a certain knowledge of accounting procedures could be deduced 3. (a) After discussion of the problem, from the curriculum vitae, it could not be leading to the conclusion that recourse considered sufficient in the light of the to the procedure of Article 29 (2) of vacancy notice, which required a very the Staff Regulations was not only good knowledge of those procedures. permissible but was necessary, that procedure was instituted by the competent authority, in this case the The experience acquired at the Office Secretary General, who submitted a draft for Official Publications, where Mr recruitment notice (No PE / 5 / S ) to the Picciolo was responsible for receipts, was Joint Committee. After obtaining the not considered sufficient, since the opinion of the Joint Committee the corresponding tasks at the European Secretary General decided, by a Parliament are entrusted to an employee memorandum of 1 July 1982, to carry in Grade B 1. through the procedure on that re­ cruitment notice, but did not follow the Joint Committee's suggestions with reference to publicity. 2. As soon as the post of principal administrator in question became vacant, and in view of the difficulties of filling it referred to above, the appointing (b) The Secretary General's mem­ authority considered the possibility of orandum emphasized the "urgency and the two recruitment procedures, the importance of the recruitment" which in ordinary one provided for by Article 29 his view made publication impracticable. (1) of the Staff Regulations and the extra­ The concise terms thus used in the ordinary one made available by Article decision referred to the circumstances of 29 (2). With regard to the latter, the the problem set out briefly above. appointing authority was convinced that the conditions required by the Staff Regulations were in fact met. It was a matter of filling a post which required It was for this reason that the re­ special qualifications in the form of cruitment notice was not published at all. particular knowledge linked to ex­ perience in a very specialized field. Furthermore the particular nature of the vacancy made its filling an "exceptional 4. (a) The candidate appointed did case" within the meaning of paragraph himself make that application.

2 It appears from the case-file that a post of principal administrator ( Career Bracket A 5 / 4 ) was vacant in the Treasury-Accounts Division of the Direc-

JUDGMENT OF 30. 5. 1984 — CASE 111/83

torate General for Administration, Personnel and Finance of the European Parliament (hereinafter referred to as "the Parliament") and that the Par­ liament issued Vacancy Notice No 3599 of 10 May 1982, opening the procedure for the filling of that post by transfer or by promotion, pursuant to Article 29 (1) (a) of the Staff Regulations. With regard to the duties to be carried out and the qualifications and experience required, it appears from the notice that the official in question was to be "responsible under the authority of the Accounting Officer for all aspects of the Accounting Service, the Recovery Service and the Service controlling imprest accounts", and that he must have inter alia "very good knowledge of accounting procedures" and "experience in the field of computerized accounting".

3 Without waiting until the closing date for applications, however, on 18 May 1982 the Parliament sent to the other Community institutions a second vacancy notice, No PE / A / 75 , pursuant to Article 29 (1) (c) of the Staff Regulations, with a view to filling the post by transfer from another institution. With regard to the nature of the duties and the qualifications and experience required that notice repeated the wording of Notice No 3599 referred to above.

4 The closing date for applications under Vacancy Notice No PE / A / 75 was 3 June 1982. By letter of 28 May 1982, the Secretary General of the Par­ liament informed the Joint Committee that "in view of the very specific nature of the post" he had "decided to adopt the procedure provided for in Article 29 (2) of the Staff Regulations". He therefore submitted to the committee a draft recruitment notice (No PE / 5 / S ) which also essentially repeated the wording of the previous notices with regard to the duties to be carried out and the qualifications and experience required.

"The department concerned took the view that your qualifications and experience did not meet the requirements set out in the transfer notice, par­ ticularly with regard to 'experience in the field of computerized accounting'.

Since data processing at the European Parliament has already reached a very advanced stage and will be developed significantly in the near future, that experience is indispensable for appointment to the post."

8 It appears in fact that as early as 5 July 1982 the post in question had been ottered to another candidate according to the procedure provided for in Article 29 (2) of the Staff Regulations. By decision of the President of the 1 arhament of 6 August 1982 that candidate was appointed to the vacant post as a probationary official in Grade A 5 with effect from 1 August 1982

JUDGMENT OF 30. 5. 1984 — CASE 111/83

9 On 18 November 1982 the applicant lodged a complaint against the decisions rejecting his application and appointing the other candidate. Since he received no reply to his complaint he brought these proceedings.

The claim for annulment of the decision not to accept the applicant's application

PICCIOLO / PARLIAMENT

13 In this regard it should be emphasized that in a recruitment or transfer procedure it is incumbent upon each candidate to provide all the useful facts and information which will permit the appointing authority to decide whether or not he fulfils the conditions laid down in the vacancy notice. It is for that authority alone, or where appropriate the selection committee, to decide whether additional information should be obtained from candidates. In this case the applicant has not even indicated the information which in his view was necessary or useful as a supplement to that contained in his curriculum vitae and that already known to the selection committee with regard to the nature of the relevant work in his present department. As a result, since the applicant has in no way shown that his application was not seriously considered during the recruitment procedure, it must be held that his first submission is completely unfounded.

1 4 Secondly, the applicant argues that the reason stated for the decision not to accept his application, the assertion that his education and experience did not correspond to the required qualifications, was in any event incorrect. The applicant states that he is acknowledged to have considerable knowledge of computer accounting and that in his present post at the Commission he even deals with the computer accounting of the Parliament.

18 The applicant further argues that no sufficient reasons were stated in the decision not to accept his application. The statement of grounds must, he says, enable the rejected candidate to recognize the possible reasons for his rejection and inform him of the objective facts on which the selection was based. In this case the only reasons stated for the rejection amounted to the simple reference to a condition alleged not to have been fulfilled.

19 According to the Parliament the reasons stated in support of the decision not to accept the applicant's application were appropriate and sufficient. The administration informed the applicant not only of the fact that he had not been appointed but also of the reasons on which that decision was based in view of the circumstances and of the requirements of the post to be filled.

20 In this regard reference must be made to the settled case-law of the Court according to which the obligation to state the reasons on which a decision adversely affecting an official is based is intended on the one hand to enable the Court to review the legality of the decision and on the other hand to provide the person concerned with the information necessary to recognize whether or not the decision is well founded.

21 In this case the Parliament informed the applicant that he did not fulfil the condition concerning experience in the field of computerized accounting. It

PICCIOLO / PARLIAMENT

also explained to him why such experience was indispensable for appointment to the post in question, but did not state in detail why the experience to which the applicant had referred in his application was not sufficient in that respect.

26 Since all the submissions put forward by the applicant in support of his claim for the annulment of the decision rejecting his application have proved unfounded, the claim must be dismissed.

JUDGMENT OF 30. 5. 1984 — CASE 111/83

The claim for annulment of the appointment of another candidate 27 In this respect the applicant argues that the conditions governing the opening of the special recruitment procedure referred to in Article 29 (2) of the Staff Regulations were not met in this case and that the appointment must therefore be annulled.

28 The Parliament takes the view that this claims is inadmissible. Since the applicant did not himself fulfil the conditions for appointment the appointment of another candidate cannot adversely affect him. Moreover the claim is also unfounded since all the conditions of application provided for in Article 29 (2) were in fact met.

29 According to well-established case-law , in order for an official to bring proceedings pursuant to Articles 90 and 91 of the Staff Regulations against a decision of the appointing authority , he must have a personal interest in the annulment of the measure in question (see the judgment of 29 . 10. 1975, Marenco and Others v Commission, Joined Cases 81 to 88 / 74 , [1975] ECR 1247, and the judgment of 30. 6. 1983 , Schlohv Council, Case 85 / 82 , [1983] ECR 2105). Since all the objections raised by the applicant in regard to the decision of the appointing authority not to accept his application for the vacant post have been shown to be ill-founded , the applicant has no legitimate interest in the annulment of the appointment of another candidate to that post, which he cannot himself validly claim. This claim of the applicant must therefore be dismissed as inadmissible.

hereby:

1. Dismisses the application;

2. Orders the European Parliament to pay the whole of the costs, including those of the applicant.

Bahlmann Pescatore Due

Delivered in open court in Luxembourg on 30 May 1984.

For the Registrar H. A. Rühl K. Bahlmann Principal Administrator President of the Second Chamber