JUDGMENT OF THE CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL

(Second Chamber)

4 February 2010

Case F-15/08

Valérie Wiame

v

European Commission

(Civil service — Open competition — Non‑inclusion on the reserve list — Insufficient score — Notice of open competition EPSO/AST/7/05 — Taking of evidence — Interest in bringing proceedings)

Application: brought under Articles 236 EC and 152 EA, in which Ms Wiame seeks annulment of the decision of the selection board in competition EPSO/AST/7/05 awarding her a score which was insufficient for her to be included on the reserve list for the competition.

Held: The action is dismissed. The applicant is to bear her own costs. The Commission is to bear its own costs.

Summary

1.      Officials — Actions — Act adversely affecting an official — Decision adopted after reconsideration of a previous decision

(Staff Regulations, Arts 90(2) and 91(1))

2.      Acts of the institutions — Presumption of legality — Information calling legality of an act into question

1.      When a candidate whose request to be admitted to a Community competition has been rejected seeks reconsideration of that decision, it is only the decision taken by the selection board after reconsideration which must be regarded as the act adversely affecting him. It is therefore against that decision that the candidate must direct his heads of claim.

(see para. 20)

See:

T-173/05 Heus v Commission [2006] ECR-SC I‑A‑2‑329 and II‑A‑2‑1695, para. 19

F-73/06 Van Neyghem v Commission [2007] ECR-SC I‑A‑1‑441 and II‑A‑1‑2515, para. 39

2.      An administrative act is presumed to be lawful and the burden of proof lies, in principle, with the person claiming it to be unlawful, so that it is for the applicant to provide at the very least sufficiently precise, objective and consistent information to corroborate the truth or likelihood of the facts in support of his claim. Consequently, an applicant who has neither evidence nor, at the very least, a body of information at his disposal must accept that decisions adopted in relation to competitions are presumed to be lawful, and he cannot expect the Civil Service Tribunal itself to examine the candidatures of the successful candidates in order to ascertain whether some successful candidates were unlawfully admitted to the competition.

(see para. 21)

See:

C-274/99 P Connolly v Commission [2001] ECR I-1611, paras 113 and 114

T-272/94 Brulant v Parliament [1996] ECR-SC I‑A‑513 and II‑1397, para. 35; T‑57/99 Griesel v Council [2000] ECR-SC I‑A‑151 and II‑699, para. 25