Language of document : ECLI:EU:F:2007:167


27 September 2007

Case F-120/06

Noémi Dálnoky


Commission of the European Communities

(Civil service – Open competition – Notice of competition – Admissibility)

Application: brought under Articles 236 EC and 152 EA, in which Mrs Dálnoky seeks, in particular, annulment of the notice of open competition EPSO/AD/47/06, published in the Official Journal of the European Union of 21 June 2006 (OJ 2006 C 145 A, p. 3), in that it requires candidates to have a thorough knowledge of Romanian.

Held: The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible. Each party is to bear its own costs.


1.      Officials – Actions – Prior administrative complaint – None – Inadmissibility – Exceptions

(Staff Regulations, Arts 90(2) and 91(2), and Annex III, Art. 1(1))

2.      Officials – Actions – Subject-matter – Direction to the administration – Inadmissibility

(Staff Regulations, Art. 91)

1.      Under Article 91(2) of the Staff Regulations, an appeal to the Community judicature is admissible only if a complaint against the act adversely affecting the person concerned has previously been submitted to the appointing authority pursuant to Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations.

Save where the appeal is brought against an act which does not emanate from the appointing authority itself, such as a decision taken by a competition selection board or a staff report, a failure to lodge a prior complaint within the time-limit prescribed renders the appeal manifestly inadmissible.

In that regard, Article 1(1) of Annex III to the Staff Regulations provides that a notice of competition is an act drawn up by the appointing authority. For a notice of competition to be disputed, therefore, a complaint must first be lodged under Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations.

(see paras 35-37)


317/85 Pomar v Commission [1987] ECR 2467, paras 11 and 13

T-133/89 Burban v Parliament [1990] ECR II‑245, para. 17; T-1/91 Della Pietra v Commission [1992] ECR II‑2145, para. 23; T-208/00 Barleycorn Mongolue and Boixader Rivas v Council and Parliament [2001] ECR-SC I‑A‑103 and II‑479, paras 30 to 32

2.      It is not for the Community judicature to issue directions to the administration or to make declaratory rulings in the context of a review of legality under Article 91 of the Staff Regulations.

(see para. 42)


T-94/92 X v Commission [1994] ECR-SC I‑A‑149 and II‑481, para. 33; T‑21/95 and T‑186/95 Mazzocchi-Alemanni v Commission [1996] ECR-SC I‑A‑501 and II‑1377, para. 44; T-187/01 Mellone v Commission [2002] ECR-SC I‑A‑81 and II‑389, para. 16; T-14/03 Di Marzio v Commission [2004] ECR-SC I‑A‑43 and II‑167, para. 63