ORDER OF THE EUROPEAN UNION CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL

(Second Chamber)

30 November 2015

Case F‑104/14

Donncha O’Riain

v

European Commission

(Civil service — Competitions — Competition notice EPSO/AD/241/12 — Decision not to include the applicant on the reserve list — Principle of equal treatment of candidates — Impartiality of the selection board — Action manifestly unfounded)

Application:      under Article 270 TFEU, applicable to the EAEC Treaty pursuant to Article 106a thereof, in which Mr O’Riain seeks annulment of the decision of the selection board in Competition EPSO/AD/241/12 for the recruitment of Irish-language translators (‘the selection board’), as confirmed after review on 27 June 2014, not to include him on the list of successful candidates in that competition.

Held:      The action is dismissed as in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded. Mr O’Riain is to bear his own costs and is ordered to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.

Summary

Officials — Competitions — Principle of impartiality of the selection board — Acquaintanceship between a member of the selection board and a candidate — Conflict of interests where there is objective, relevant and consistent evidence — Obligation for the member of the selection board to abstain

(Staff Regulations, Art. 11a)

Under Article 11a(1) of the Staff Regulations, applicable to temporary staff and contract staff respectively pursuant to Articles 11 and 81 of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union, an official must not, in the performance of his duties, deal with a matter in which, directly or indirectly, he has any personal interest such as to impair his independence, and, in particular, family and financial interests.

The principle of impartiality of a selection board in a competition constitutes an expression of the principle of equal treatment and is one of the guarantees afforded by the European Union legal order.

However, an acquaintanceship between a member of a selection board and a candidate is not, in itself, sufficient to prove that that member has a ‘personal interest’ within the meaning of Article 11a of the Staff Regulations, the purpose of which is to ensure the independence, integrity and impartiality of officials, which is capable, as such, of calling his impartiality into question. The fact that a member of the selection board is personally acquainted with one of the candidates does not necessarily mean that that member will be prejudiced in favour of, or against, that candidate’s performance.

It is only where it is apparent, on the basis of objective, relevant and consistent evidence, that even just one member of the selection board has a conflict of interests in the sense that he has, directly or indirectly, a personal interest in acting to the advantage or disadvantage of one of the candidates, that the obligation of impartiality, as enshrined in Article 11a of the Staff Regulations, requires that he be unable to express his opinion on the merits of that candidate.

(see paras 39, 41-43)

See:

Judgments of 30 April 2008 in Dragoman v Commission, F‑16/07, EU:F:2008:51, para. 41; 20 November 2012 in Soukup v Commission, F‑1/11, EU:F:2012:157, para. 38, and 10 July 2014 in CG v EIB, F‑115/11, EU:F:2014:187, para. 65