1. The fact that an official has submitted a request for reconsideration of a decision adversely affecting him cannot prevent the time for bringing an action against that decision from running. Any other solution – that is, if officials were able, by the repeated submission of requests of that sort, indefinitely to extend the time- limit for bringing an action – would be incompatible with the system of remedies instituted by the staff regulations and with the principle of legal certainty. 2. An action brought against a decision not to admit a candidate to a competition adopted after reconsideration of an identical previous decision is admissible in so far as it appears that the second decision actually replaced the first and cannot be regarded as merely confirming it. 3. An official cannot rely, in support of an action brought against a decision not to admit him to a competition, on submissions alleging irregularities in the competition notice if he did not challenge in good time the provisions of that notice which, in his view, adversely affected him. Were it otherwise, it would be possible to challenge a competition notice long after it had been published and after most or all of the operations carried out in connection with the competition had already taken place, and that would be contrary to the principles of legal certainty, legitimate expectation and sound administration. 4 . In the context of a competition the selection board is called upon to assess factors known to the candidates, whether it be qualifications which they hold, tests which they have undergone or periodic reports of which they are aware and on which they have had an opportunity to comment. That constitutes a guarantee that the competition will be properly conducted and a protection against arbitrariness, inasmuch as the candidates are aware of all the factors which entered into the selection board’s assessment and are therefore well placed to contest that assessment if they consider that it is wrong. If, on the other hand, the selection board bases its decision at least in part, as it did in this case, on factors such as information supplied by, and the opinions of, the candidates’ superiors, of which the candidates concerned have no knowledge, they have no opportunity to defend themselves against statements made by third parties which, though they may well be perfectly correct, may also be incorrect for one reason or another. The fact that candidates did not have an opportunity to state their views on the opinions expressed on them by their superiors, account of which was taken by the selection board, constitutes a breach of a principle governing the competition procedure which justifies annulment of decisions refusing to admit those candidates.
Citations:
C-294/84, [1986] EUECJ C-294/84
Links:
European
Updated: 22 May 2022; Ref: scu.134006
