JUDGMENT OF THE EUROPEAN UNION CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL

(First Chamber)

15 July 2014

Case F‑160/12

Bernat Montagut Viladot

v

European Commission

(Civil service — Competitions — Notice of competition EPSO/AD/206/11 (AD 5) — Non-inclusion on the reserve list — Conditions of admission of candidates — Recognition of diplomas)

Application:      under Article 270 TFEU, applicable to the EAEC Treaty pursuant to Article 106a thereof, in which Mr Montagut Viladot challenges the refusal of the selection board in competition EPSO/AD/206/11 (AD 5) to include his name on the reserve list for that competition.

Held:      The action is dismissed. The European Commission is to bear its own costs and is ordered to pay the costs incurred by Mr Montagut Viladot.

Summary

1.      Officials — Competitions — Competition based on qualifications and tests — University diploma or degree required — Meaning of ‘diploma or degree’ — Determination on the basis of the legislation of the Member State in which the studies took place

2.      Officials — Principles — Protection of legitimate expectations — Assurance given by a selection board contrary to the applicable rules — Situation not creating legitimate expectation of inclusion on the reserve list

1.      In the absence of any provision to the contrary contained either in a regulation or a directive applicable to recruitment competitions or in the notice of competition, the requirement of possession of a university diploma on which admission to an open competition depends is necessarily to be construed in the light of the definition of such a diploma given in the legislation of the Member State in which the candidate completed the studies on which he relies. The university diploma which a candidate must possess in order to take part in an open competition must be fully recognised under the legislation of the Member State in which it was awarded.

(see paras 30, 31)

See:

judgment in Jaenicke Cendoya v Commission, 108/88, EU:C:1989:325, para. 17

judgment in Alonso Morales v Commission, T‑299/97, EU:T:1999:314, para. 60

judgment in Zangerl-Posselt v Commission, F‑83/07, EU:F:2009:158, para. 51

2.      Three conditions must be satisfied in order to claim entitlement to the protection of legitimate expectations. First, precise, unconditional and consistent assurances originating from authorised and reliable sources must have been given to the person concerned by the Union administration. Second, those assurances must be such as to give rise to a legitimate expectation on the part of the person to whom they are addressed. Third, the assurances given must comply with the applicable rules.

A note from a selection board in a competition based on qualifications and tests assuring a candidate that he satisfies all the admission conditions laid down in the competition notice may not be regarded as raising legitimate expectations in the mind of that candidate where such assurances are inconsistent with the applicable rules because the candidate’s diploma does not meet the requirements of that notice.

(see paras 47, 49)

See:

judgment in Neirinck v Commission, F‑84/05, EU:F:2007:33, para. 79