Language of document : ECLI:EU:F:2007:27


(Second Chamber)

15 February 2007

Cases F-142/06 and F-142/06 AJ

Francesco Bligny


Commission of the European Communities

(Officials – Open competition – Conditions for admission – Non‑admission to correction of the written test – Incomplete application – Proof of citizenship – Legal aid)

Application: brought under Articles 236 EC and 152 EA, in which Mr Bligny seeks annulment of the decisions of the selection board in competition EPSO/AD/26/05 of 23 November and 7 December 2006 refusing to correct his written test on the ground that his application had not included any document proving his citizenship. Furthermore, Mr Bligny has applied for legal aid for Cases F‑142/06 and F‑142/06 R under Article 94 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, applicable mutatis mutandis to the Civil Service Tribunal pursuant to Article 3(4) of Council Decision 2004/752/EC, Euratom of 2 November 2004 establishing the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (OJ 2004 L 333, p. 7), until the entry into force of its rules of procedure.

Held: The action is dismissed as manifestly unfounded. The application for legal aid is rejected. The parties are ordered to bear their own costs.


Officials – Competitions – Conditions for admission – Fixing by the competition notice

(Staff Regulations, Annex III, Arts 2 and 5)

The selection board in a competition is bound by the text of the notice of competition. Consequently, an application is manifestly unfounded where it seeks the annulment of its decision to exclude a candidate who has not provided, within the requisite period, a document proving his citizenship, despite the fact that the notice of competition clearly states that it must be included if the application is to be valid. That conclusion is not affected by the argument, which is not based on any legal provision, that the administration should have provided candidates with all the necessary information through their electronic application file, without there being any need for them to consult the competition notice, for the candidates are bound by that competition notice in the same way as the selection board.

(see paras 26-31, 33)


T-95/00 and T-96/00 Zaur-Gora and Dubigh v Commission [2001] ECR-SC I‑A‑79 and II‑379, para. 47; T-139/00 Bal v Commission [2002] ECR-SC I‑A‑33 and II‑139, para. 35

F-12/05 Tas v Commission [2006] ECR-SC I‑A‑1‑79 and II‑A‑1‑285, para. 43