Language of document : ECLI:EU:F:2014:196


(Third Chamber)

4 September 2014

Case F‑111/13

Olivier Prigent


European Commission

(Civil service — Open competition — Notice of open competitions EPSO/AD/230/12 (AD 5) and EPSO/AD/231/12 (AD 7) — Professional experience condition to be eligible for Competition EPSO/AD/231/12 (AD 7) not fulfilled — Reassignment to Competition EPSO/AD/230/12 (AD 5) — Inclusion in the reserve list of Competition EPSO/AD/230/12 (AD 5) — Interest in bringing proceedings — Complaint submitted out of time — Successive requests for reconsideration)

Application:      under Article 270 TFEU, applicable to the EAEC Treaty pursuant to Article 106a thereof, in which Mr Prigent seeks, in particular, annulment of the decision of the selection board in open competition EPSO/AD/231/12 (AD 7), notified by a letter of 16 July 2012 from the European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO), not to invite him to the assessment centre for that competition, but, having reassigned him to open competition EPSO/AD/230/12 (AD 5), to invite him to the assessment centre for the latter competition.

Held:      The action is dismissed as being, in part, clearly inadmissible and, in part, clearly unfounded . Mr Prigent is to bear his own costs and is ordered to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.


Officials — Competitions — Competition based on qualifications and tests — Conditions for admission — Supporting documents — Candidates’ obligation to ensure that documents are adequate

(Staff Regulations, Annex III, Art. 2)

It is, as a general rule, for a candidate in a competition to provide the selection board with all the information and documents which he regards as necessary for the purposes of examining his application in order to enable the selection board to determine whether he fulfils the conditions laid down by the competition notice, all the more so if he has been expressly and formally requested to do so. The selection board, when giving its decision on the admission of candidates to a competition or their exclusion from it, is therefore entitled to limit its examination to the application forms and the documents annexed thereto.

(see para. 43)


judgment in Belardinelli and Others v Court of Justice, 225/87, EU:C:1989:309, para. 24

judgments in Burban v Parliament, T‑133/89, EU:T:1990:36, paras 31 and 34; and Martínez Alarcón v Commission, T‑357/00, T‑361/00, T‑363/00 and T‑364/00, EU:T:2002:66, para. 76

judgment in Demeneix v Commission, F‑96/12, EU:F:2013:52, para. 44