Category: European

Detti v Court Of Justice (Rec 1983,P 2421) (Judgment): ECJ 14 Jul 1983

Europa A complaint directed against a decision of a selection board appears to be pointless, as the institution concerned has no authority to annul or amend the decisions of a selection board, and therefore the only legal remedy open to those concerned by such a decision lies in a direct application to the court.
However, where a complaint is nevertheless submitted, the prescribed period begins to run, in accordance with article 91 of the staff regu lations, from the day on which the decision taken in reply to the complaint is notified to the person concerned.
A selection board for a competition enjoys a wide discretion and the court has no jurisdiction to review its value judgments. However, the board must proceed on the basis of objective criteria which are known to each of the candidates and it must state adequately the grounds on which its decision is based. It is for that reason that indent (e) of the second subparagraph of article 1(1) of annex iii to the staff regulations provides that the notice of competition, drawn up by the appointing authority, must specify inter alia, where the competition is on the basis of tests, of what kind they will be and how they will be marked.
In view of the importance for the subsequent career of officials of recruitment by way of competition, it must be ensured that criteria for assessment which are objective and equal for all the candidates are strictly applied. It follows that the candidates in a competition are entitled to expect that tests which take place simultaneously in different places are entirely identical and, in addition, they should receive formal and accurate information as to the result of the tests which they have taken. Where irregularities or errors have occurred in the course of a competition and cannot be rectified by a repetition of the tests, with the result that the only alternative is the application of a corrective factor in the assessment of the tests, that factor must be applied unequivocally and the person concerned is entitled to be informed of the criteria adopted.
Where, in an open competition for the purpose of constituting a reserve for future recruitment, the court annuls the decision of the selection board not to place a candidate on a reserve list, the rights of the person concerned are adequately protected if the board and the appointing authority reconsider their decisions and seek a just solution in his case. It is not necessary to call in question the entire result of the competition or to annual the appointments which have been made as a result thereof.

Citations:

C-144/82, [1983] EUECJ C-144/82

Links:

Bailii

European

Updated: 21 May 2022; Ref: scu.133442

Mogensen and Others v Commission: ECJ 14 Jul 1983

1. By requiring the appointing authority only to consider whether the post ‘can’ be filled by promotion within the institution article 29(1)(a) of the staff regulations clearly shows that that authority is under no absolute obligation to promote an official but merely has to consider, in each case, whether promotion is capable of leading to the appointment of a person of the highest standard of ability, efficiency and integrity as required by article 27 of the staff regulations.
Although article 29(1)(a) of the staff regulations requires the appointing authority to consider the possibility of promotion with the utmost care before going on to the following stage it does not prevent the authority, in the course of such an examination, from also taking account of the possibility of obtaining better candidates by using the other procedures mentioned in that paragraph. Consequently the appointing authority is at liberty to consider the subsequent options under article 29(1).
2. Since the appointing authority is not obliged to fill a post by promotion within the institution and has a wide discretion for the purpose of finding the candidate with the highest standard of ability, efficiency and integrity, the court must, in reviewing the correctness of the examination of the internal candidatures, confine itself to the question whether the administration kept within proper bounds and did not exercise its power in a manifestly erroneous manner.
In that respect the mere fact that, when the recruitment procedure was opened, a candidate from another institution was regarded as being the most suitable, does not necessarily mean that the internal candidatures were not carefully considered.

Citations:

C-10/82, [1983] EUECJ C-10/82

Links:

Bailii

Citing:

Interim Order – Mogensen and Others v Commission ECJ 5-Feb-1982
ECJ 1 A judge before whom a request for the adoption of interim measures is brought, having heard the arguments set out by the parties, must restrict the scope of his consideration exclusively to the grounds . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

European

Updated: 21 May 2022; Ref: scu.133371

Commission v United Kingdom (Judgment) Commission of the European Communities v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland: ECJ 15 Jul 1982

Europa Failure of a State to fulfil its obligations – Protection of animal health. 1. Although under article 36 of the treaty it is for each of the member states to determine, and, if appropriate, to alter its policy relating to animal health, the effects of health policy on imports from other member states cannot exceed the limits laid down by community law.
2. The second sentence of article 36 is designed to prevent restrictions on trade mentioned in the first sentence of that article from being diverted from their proper purpose and used in such a way as either to create discrimination in respect of goods originating in other member states or indirectly to protect certain national products.
In so far as certain facts suggest that the real aim of health measures adopted by a member state is to block, for commercial and economic reasons, imports from other member states and inasmuch as it cannot be shown that, for reasons of animal health, the only possibility open to the member state concerned was to apply those measures and that they were therefore not more restrictive than was necessary for the intended purpose, the measures in question constitute a disguised restriction within the meaning of the second sentence of article 36.

Citations:

C-40/82, [1982] EUECJ C-40/82, [1984] EUECJ C-40/82

Links:

Bailii, Bailii

European, Animals

Updated: 21 May 2022; Ref: scu.133385

Hoffmann v Commission: ECJ 17 Mar 1983

ECJ 1. Although the personal files of the officials eligible for promotion must be made available to the promotion committees and to the appointing authority, it would be unreasonable to require the committees and the appointing authority to explain in each case the use which they made of the information available to them.
2.The value of a qualification may be of significance when officials are recruited, established or even placed in a different category. In the case of subsequent promotion, however, other factors must be taken into account when the merits of officials eligible for promotion are compared, in particular the general quality of the work which they have performed in carrying out their duties.
An official cannot, therefore, take issue with the fact that among the officials selected for promotion was someone whose qualification was, in his estimation, inferior to his own.

Citations:

C-280/81, [1983] EUECJ C-280/81

Links:

Bailii

European

Updated: 21 May 2022; Ref: scu.133334