JUDGMENT OF 31. 3. 1965 — CASE 16/64 RAUCH v COMMISSION
In Case 16/64
THE COURT (Second Chamber) composed of: A. M. Donner, President of Chamber, W. Strauß (Rapporteur) and R. Monaco, Judges, Advocate-General: J. Gand Registrar: A. Van Houtte
gives the following
JUDGMENT
Issues of fact and of law
I — Facts
II — Conclusions of the parties
III — Submissions and arguments of the Parties
1. First submission: Infringement of Article 29 and of Annex III to the Staff Regulations
A — Admissibility
B — The Substance
2. Second submission: Infringement of subparagraph (b) of Article 52 of the Conditions of Employment
3. Third submission: Infringement of Article 25 of the Staff Regulations
4. Fourth submission: That Miss Kurz's application was out of time
5. Fifth submission: Failure by the defendant to have adopted the detailed arrangements for giving effect to the provisions concerning the procedure for competitions
6. Sixth submission: Illegalities in the procedure followed by the Selection Board
7. Seventh submission: Failure by the Selection Board to state the marks obtained by each of the two candidates as regards knowledge of languages and vocational experience
IV— Procedure
Grounds of judgment
I — The first submission
1. Admissibility
2. The substance
II — Second submission
III — Third submission
IV — Fourth submission
V — Fifth submission
1. Admissibility
2. On the substance
VI — Sixth submission
1. Admissibility
2. On the substance
VII — Seventh submission
VIII — Costs
I —. Facts
1. The applicant was appointed on 28 September 1962 as an official in Grade CI in the defendant's Directorate-General, of Administration.
2. By Vacancy Notice No 166 published in the Staff Information Bulletin of the Commission of the EEC No 10 of 30 August 1962 the defendant announced the vacancy of a post in Grade B8 (the future B3) in the Press and Information Department of the European Communities' London office.
3. By Notice of Competition No EEC/143/B published in the said Bulletin, No 48 dated 16 August 1963, it was brought to The attention of the staff that a competition internal to the institution was being held in order to fill the post concerned. It was stated that the Competition was open both to officials and to auxiliary staff. The applicant and four other persons, including Miss Kurz, who had been engaged as an auxiliary as from 15 February 1963, applied for the post.
4. By letter dated 4 December 1963 each of these two candidates was informed that her name had been placed oh the list of suitable candidates.
5. Miss Kurz was placed first on the list and the applicant second and on 20 February 1964 the Committee of Chairmen decided to appoint Miss Kurz to the post. By letter dated 11 March 1964 the administration informed the applicant that she had not been chosen.
6. On 29 April 1964 the defendant started the present proceedings.
II —. Conclusions of the parties
1. Annul the decision of the Selection Board for the competition to admit Miss Gertrud Kurz to Competition No 143/B, and to place her name on the list of suitable candidates:
2. Annul so far as necessary the decision of the appointing authority to accept this list of suitable candidates as it stood, without checking the right of Miss Gertrud Kurz to take part in the competition;
3. Annul the decision of the appointing authority to choose Miss Gertrud Kurz and to appoint her to the post advertised in Vacancy Notice No 166 and in the Notice of Competition No 143/B;
4. Order the defendant to bear the whole costs of the present proceedings;
5. Place it on record that the applicant reserves the right, after production by the defendant of its documents and after the presentation of its submissions, to raise any submissions contesting in particular the validity of the competition procedure, both as regards the composition of the Selection Board and the conduct of the competition having regard to the provisions of the Staff Regulations, particularly Annex III, and to provisions laid down by the Commission itself relating to the composition of Selection Boards.
(a). the documents relating to the consultation with the Joint Committee and the head of the department concerned, as provided in Article 1 (1) of Annex III to the Staff Regulations;
(b). the document S/01965/, dated 21 June 1963, of the executive secretariat containing the provisions relating to competitions;
(c). the detailed rules for the application of Article 11 of the Commission's Internal Regulations.
III —. Submissions and arguments of the Parties
1. First submission: Infringement of Article 29 and of Annex III to the Staff Regulations
A —. Admissibility
B —. The Substance
2. Second submission: Infringement of subparagraph (b) of Article 52 of the Conditions of Employment
3. Third submission: Infringement of Article 25 of the Staff Regulations
4. Fourth submission: That Miss Kurz's application was out of time
5. Fifth submission: Failure by the defendant to have adopted the detailed arrangements for giving effect to the provisions concerning the procedure for competitions
6. Sixth submission: Illegalities in the procedure followed by the Selection Board
7. Seventh submission: Failure by the Selection Board to state the marks obtained by each of the two candidates as regards knowledge of languages and vocational experience
IV—. Procedure
I —. The first submission
1. Admissibility
2. The substance
II —. Second submission
III —. Third submission
IV —. Fourth submission
V —. Fifth submission
1. Admissibility
2. On the substance
VI —. Sixth submission
(a). Although the Selection Board was dealing with a competition on the basis of qualifications, it went so far as to give real tests under the guise of interviews, and the interview held with the applicant amounted to a series of trick questions;
(b). The Selection Board did not take qualifications into account, as the marks were given for knowledge of languages and vocational experience; as for knowledge of languages it should be noted that the Selection Board treated knowledge of English a decisive criterion whereas the Notice of Competition specified thorough knowledge of one of the languages of the Community (preferably French); the applicant possesses an excellent knowledge of French and, finally, has lived in England for fourteen years while Miss Kurz was there for the first time;
(c). The Selection Board should not have taken into account the vocational experience which Miss Kurz acquired at the defendant's London office.
1. Admissibility
2. On the substance
(a). As regards the complaint under (b), the applicant has not alleged any precise fact giving grounds for the supposition that the Selection Board did not duly take the qualifications of the candidates into account.
(b). As regards the complaint mentioned at (c) it was natural for the Selection Board to take into account vocational experience acquired by a candidate in the carrying out of duties identical or similar to the ones needed for the post to be filled.
VII —. Seventh submission
VIII —. Costs
Upon hearing the report of the Judge-Rapporteur; Upon hearing the parties; Upon hearing the opinion of the Advocate-General; Having regard to the Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Economic Community; Having regard to the Staff Regulations of officials of the European Economic Community and the European Atomic Energy Community; Having regard to the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of these Communities; Having regard to the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice of the European Communities and in Particular Articles 69 and 70 thereof; THE COURT (Second Chamber) hereby:
I Dismisses Application No 16/64 as unfounded;
2 Orders the applicant to bear the costs including those relating to the request for the grant of legal aid, but not including the costs incurred by the defendant.