JUDGMENT OF THE GENERAL COURT (Appeal Chamber)

15 October 2014

Case T‑663/13 P

Court of Auditors of the European Union

v

BF

(Appeal — Civil service — Recruitment — Appointment to a post of Director of Human Resources — Rejection of application — Obligation to state reasons in the report submitted by the pre-selection board)

Appeal:      brought against the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 17 October 2013 in BF v Court of Auditors (F‑69/11), seeking to have that judgment set aside.

Held:      The appeal is dismissed. The Court of Auditors of the European Union is to bear its own costs and is ordered to pay those incurred by Mr BF in connection with the present proceedings.

Summary

1.      Officials — Recruitment — Procedure for filling a post of director —Consideration of candidates’ comparative merits — Administration’s discretion — Preparation by the administrative services of the appointing authority’s decision — Lawfulness

(Staff Regulations, Arts 29(2) and 45)

2.      Officials — Recruitment — Procedure for filling a post of director — Report by the pre-selection board — Obligation to state reasons — Scope

(Staff Regulations, Art. 29(2))

3.      Appeals — Pleas in law — Inadequate statement of reasons — Reliance by the Tribunal on implied reasoning — Lawfulness — Limits — Obligation to rule on each alleged infringement of law — Scope

(Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 36 and Annex I, Art. 7(1))

1.      When considering applications for a post of director, the appointing authority must have at its disposal all the information necessary to assess the respective merits of the candidates and can request assistance in this respect from the administrative services at the various hierarchical levels, in accordance with the principles inherent in the operation of any hierarchical administrative structure. That authority, which takes the final decision on appointment, must therefore be placed in a position to know and assess itself the factors which, at each stage of the selection procedure, have led, at the various administrative levels consulted, to the adoption of the advisory opinions submitted to it. It is only in those circumstances that the appointing authority may base its final decision on those opinions without infringing Article 45 of the Staff Regulations.

(see paras 25, 42)

See:

T‑88/04 Tzirani v Commission [2006] ECR-SC I‑A‑2-149 and II‑A‑2-703, para. 81 and the case-law cited therein

2.      In a procedure to fill a post of director, the report which the pre-selection board must submit to the appointing authority under internal rules of procedure must contain a statement of reasons and may not consist solely of a list of the most suitable candidates for each of the posts in question, in alphabetical order. It must necessarily set out the criteria used by the board to assess the candidates’ merits, so that the appointing authority is properly able, first, to consider their comparative merits, and then to select the most suitable candidate to perform the duties which are the subject of the recruitment notice.

(see paras 37, 43)

3.      In the context of an appeal, the purpose of review by the General Court is, primarily, to examine whether the Civil Service Tribunal responded, in a legally correct manner, to all the arguments upon which the appellant relies. However, the requirement that the Civil Service Tribunal give reasons for its decisions cannot be interpreted as meaning that it is obliged to respond in detail to every single argument advanced by the appellant, particularly if the argument was not sufficiently clear and precise.

(see para. 70)

See:

C‑120/06 P and C‑121/06 P FIAMM and Others v Council and Commission [2008] ECR I‑6513, paragraph 91; C‑202/07 P France Télécom v Commission [2009] ECR I‑2369, para. 41

13 December 2011, T‑311/09 P Marcuccio v Commission, para. 33