Language of document :

Action brought on 12 January 2007 - Matos Martins v Commission

(Case F-2/07)

Language of the case: French


Applicant: José Carlos Matos Martins (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: M.-A Lucas, lawyer)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

annul the decision of 27 February 2006 of the European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) laying down the applicant's results in the pre-selection tests for contract agents EU 25;

annul the decision of EPSO and/or of the Selection Committee not to register the applicant in the data base of candidates who had passed the pre-selection tests;

annul the consequences of the selection procedure;

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of his action, the applicant raises two pleas.

Under the first part of his first plea, the applicant asserts that the level of difficulty and the cut-off mark to be attained in the pre-selection tests, and in particular the level of difficulty of the numerical test for Function Group IV candidates was set on the basis of the number of candidates, so as to result in a predetermined number of successful candidates, whilst it is claimed that they should have been laid down solely in the light of the demands of the duties of the posts to be filled.

Under the second part of that plea, the applicant asserts that the content of the pre-selection tests was laid down for each function group on the basis of a random choice from a set of questions of different levels whilst the content of the tests should have been the same for all the candidates of the same function group, or at the very least should have been laid down by a random choice from a set of questions of the same level.

The second plea is based on breach of the duty of transparency, of the duty to provide reasons for decisions adversely affecting individuals, of the rule of public access to Commission documents and of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations. The applicant asserts that he was not sent the questions which he had been asked and that the reasons put forward by EPSO to justify that denial of information were clearly factually inaccurate and legally inadmissible. In particular, it is claimed, first, that Annex III to the Staff Regulations providing that the work of the section board is secret is not applicable in the present case and, secondly, that the communication of the questions became essential in the light of the doubts and reservations that EPSO itself and the Joint Selection Committee expressed as to the validity of the tests.