ORDER OF THE GENERAL COURT (Appeal Chamber)

19 December 2013

Case T‑32/13 P

Mario Paulo da Silva Tenreiro

v

European Commission

(Appeal — Civil service — Officials — Recruitment — Notice of vacancy — Appointment to post of Director of Directorate A ‘Civil Justice’ in the Commission’s Directorate General ‘Justice’ — Rejection of the applicant’s candidature — Appointment of another candidate — Misuse of powers — Appeal in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded)

Appeal:      against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (Third Chamber) of 14 November 2012 in Case F‑120/11 da Silva Tenreiro v Commission [2012] ECR-SC, seeking to have that judgment set aside.

Held:      The appeal is dismissed. Mr Mario Paulo da Silva Tenreiro is to bear his own costs and is ordered to pay those incurred by the European Commission in the present proceedings.

Summary

Actions brought by officials — Grounds — Misuse of powers — Definition

The concept of misuse of powers has a very precise meaning and encompasses the use by an administrative authority of its powers for a purpose other than that for which they were conferred upon it. A decision is vitiated by misuse of powers only if it appears, on the basis of objective, relevant and consistent factors, to have been taken with the purpose of achieving ends other than those stated. In that regard, it is not sufficient to refer to certain facts in support of claims; evidence of a sufficiently specific, objective and consistent nature must also be adduced to support their truth or, at the very least, their probability, failing which the material accuracy of the statements of the institution concerned cannot be challenged. Thus, the overall assessment of evidence of misuse of powers cannot be based on mere assertions or on evidence that is insufficiently clear or is neither objective nor relevant.

(see paras 31-33)

See:

T‑111/99 Samper v Parliament [2000] ECR-SC I‑A‑135 and II‑611, para. 64; T‑471/04 Karatzoglou v EAR [2008] ECR-SC I‑A‑2-79 and II‑A‑2-485, para. 49; T‑40/07 P and T‑62/07 P de Brito Sequeira Carvalho v Commission [2009] ECR-SC I‑B‑1-89 and II‑B‑1-551, paras 172 and 173