JUDGMENT OF THE GENERAL COURT (Appeal Chamber)

13 September 2011

Case T‑62/10 P

Brigitte Zangerl-Posselt

v

European Commission

(Appeal — Civil service — Recruitment — Notice of competition — Open competition — Non-admission to practical and oral tests — Conditions for admission — Diplomas required — Article 5(3)(a)(ii) of the Staff Regulations — Interpretation — Consideration of different language versions — Preparatory documents)

Appeal:      against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (First Chamber) of 30 November 2009 in Case F‑83/07 Zangerl-Posselt v Commission ECR‑SC I‑A‑1‑463 and II‑A‑1‑2499, seeking to have that judgment set aside.

Held:      The appeal is dismissed. Mrs Zangerl-Posselt is to bear her own costs and is ordered to pay those incurred by the Commission in the present proceedings.

Summary

1.      Officials — Legal nature of the relationship between a candidate and the institution organising an open competition

(Staff Regulations, Annex III)

2.      EU law — Interpretation — Principles — Independent interpretation — Limits — Interpretation of Article 5(3)(a)(ii) of the Staff Regulations

(Staff Regulations, Art. 5(3)(a)(ii))

3.      EU law — Interpretation — Texts in several languages — Uniform interpretation — Consideration of different language versions

1.      Open competitions for the purpose of recruiting EU officials are organised by the institutions in order to enable the European Union civil service to function properly. The organisation of such competitions is governed by the provisions of the Staff Regulations, in particular Annex III thereto. Accordingly, the legal relations established between candidates in an open competition and the institution organising the competition come under public law and are subject to the general rules of administrative law.

(see para. 36)

See:

T‑157/96 Affatato v Commission [1998] ECR-SC I‑A‑41 and II‑97, para. 19

2.      The terms of a provision of Community law which makes no express reference to the laws of the Member States for the purpose of determining its meaning and scope must normally be given an independent interpretation which must take into account the context of the provision and the purpose of the relevant rules. It is only where it cannot identify in EU law or in the general principles of EU law criteria enabling it to define the meaning and scope of such a provision by an independent interpretation that the EU Courts may, even in the absence of an express reference, find it necessary to refer to the laws of the Member States for the application of EU law.

In the context of the application of Article 5(3)(a)(ii) of the Staff Regulations, which provides that appointment to a post as official in function group AST requires possession of ‘a level of secondary education attested by a diploma giving access to post-secondary education’ the Civil Service Tribunal did not make an error of law in giving an independent and uniform interpretation of that provision, according to which the German ‘Realschulabschluss’ diploma did not allow access to the level of education which, in Germany, corresponded to ‘postsekundäre Bildung’ within the meaning of the above article, since that article contains an element, namely the level of education to which the diploma or qualification required must give access, which enables its content and scope to be specified. That element of comparison is essential in order to guarantee respect for the principle of equal treatment between those taking part in competition procedures with a view to a possible appointment to a post as an official in the AST function group.

(see paras 41, 43)

See:

T‑43/90 Díaz García v Parliament [1992] ECR II‑2619, para. 36 and the case-law cited; T‑85/91 Khouri v Commission [1992] ECR II‑2637, para. 32 and the case-law cited

3.      The necessity for uniform application and, accordingly, for uniform interpretation of EU law makes it impossible to consider one version of a text in isolation but requires that it be interpreted on the basis of both the real intention of its author and the aim sought to be achieved, in the light in particular of the versions drawn up in all the languages of the European Union. One divergent language version alone cannot, in any event, prevail over all the other language versions.

(see para. 42)

See:

29/69 Stauder [1969] ECR 419, para. 3; C‑219/95 P Ferriere Nord v Commission [1997] ECR I‑4411, para. 15

T‑68/97 Neumann and Neumann-Schölles v Commission [1999] ECR-SC I‑A‑193 and II‑1005, para. 79