JUDGMENT OF 31. 3. 1965—CASE 23/64 VANDEVYVERE v PARLIAMENT
In Case 23/64
THE COURT (Second Chamber) composed of: A. M. Donner, President of Chamber, W. Strauß (Rapporteur) and R. Monaco (Judges), Advocate-General: M. Lagrange 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. Admissibility
A — Is Article 91 of the Staff Regulations applicable to candidates for entry to the service of the Communities?
B — Inadequacy of submissions
C — The inadmissible nature of the reservation allowing fresh issues to be raised in the course of proceedings; the requirement for the applicant to limit her action to acts adversely affecting her
2. On the substance of the case
A — Infringement of Articles 110 of the EEC and EAEC Staff Regulations and of 107 of the ECSC Staff Regulations
B — Lack of statement of reasons
C — Errors of fact
3. Production of documents
IV — Procedure
Grounds of judgment
I — Concerning the object of the proceedings
II — As to the admissibility of the application
III — On the substance of the case
1. The first submission
2. The second submission
3. The third submission
4. Concerning the preparatory inquiry requested by the applicant
IV — Costs
I —. Facts
1. In the Official Journal of 2 December 1963, pp. 2807 et seq., the defendant published the Notice of General Competition No P.E. 1/B, to be conducted on the basis of qualifications and tests, for the recruitment of an assistant (career bracket B 3-B 2) in the Directorate-General of Parliamentary Documentation and Information, Library Service.
2. Having submitted her application, the applicant received on 27 February 1964 a letter from the Secretary of the Selection Board written in Dutch, and stating that the Selection Board, at its meeting on 25 February 1964, did not consider that it should include the name of the applicant on the list of candidates die aan het examen kunnen deelnemen (who may take part in the tests).
3. By letter of 1 March 1964 addressed to the Secretary of the Selection Board the applicant asked whether the letter of 25 February was not based on an error, since her qualifications were of a level higher than those required by the notice of the competition.
4. By letter of 6 March 1964, the Chairman of the Selection Board replied inter alia:
5. On 26 May 1964 the applicant lodged her application at the Registry.
II —. Conclusions of the parties
1. Declare null and void the decision taken by the Selection Board set up to decide upon Notice of Competition No P.E. 1/B at its meeting on 25 February 1964, by which the applicant was eliminated from the admission list provided for in the first paragraph of Article 5 of Annex III to the Staff Regulations;
2. Declare null and void the decision taken either at that meeting or at a later meeting, under which the applicant was eliminated from the list of candidates allowed to take part in the tests;
3. Consequently declare Competition No P.E. 1/B null and void with all the legal consequences concerning the nullity of the list of suitable candidates, the constitution of a reserve for future recruitment and any appointments made following this competition on the basis of the results;
4. So far as necessary, declare null and void the decisions of the European Parliament ratifying the results of the competition;
5. Order the opposing party to pay the costs in full.
1. Place it upon record that it requests the Court in its discretion to decide upon the admissibility of the application and the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice of the European Communities;
2. Hold that the mere enumeration of provisions of the Regulations alleged to have been infringed and other reasons for annulment are insufficient within the terms of the Rules of Procedure; hold furthermore that the reservation of the right to put forward further submissions is invalid; and regard as valid only the submission set out in the application;
3. On the substance of the matter, regard the said submissions as inadmissible if not unfounded and reject the application;
4. Make an order as to costs in accordance with the appropriate provisions.
III —. Submissions and arguments of the parties
1. Admissibility
A —. Is Article 91 of the Staff Regulations applicable to candidates for entry to the service of the Communities?
B —. Inadequacy of submissions
C —. The inadmissible nature of the reservation allowing fresh issues to be raised in the course of proceedings; the requirement for the applicant to limit her action to acts adversely affecting her
2. On the substance of the case
A —. Infringement of Articles 110 of the EEC and EAEC Staff Regulations and of 107 of the ECSC Staff Regulations
B —. Lack of statement of reasons
C —. Errors of fact
3. Production of documents
(1). evidence that the consultation provided for in Article 1 (1) of Annex III to the Staff Regulations took place;
(2). the minutes of the Selection Board;
(3). the file of his client if she was given a personal file by the European Parliament or by the Selection Board.
IV —. Procedure
I —. Concerning the object of the proceedings
II —. As to the admissibility of the application
1. The defendant considers the application inadmissible, for the reason that only servants of the Community have the capacity to make an application under Article 91 of the Staff Regulations.
2. The defendant contends that the Court should hold the mere enumeration of provisions of the Regulations alleged to have been infringed and other reasons for annulment … insufficient and, holding furthermore that the reservation of the right to put forward further submissions is invalid, to regard as valid only the submissions set out in the application.
III —. On the substance of the case
1. The first submission
2. The second submission
3. The third submission
(a). The applicant alleges that the disputed decision lacks a basis of fact and that indeed she had the qualifications required by the Notice of Competition, and to some extent even superior qualifications.
(b). The applicant claims in addition that according to certain information, the Selection Board first placed her at the head of the abovementioned list and that her name disappeared from it following external intervention. However, the applicant has not indicated precise facts in support of this assertion and has thus not furnished initial evidence sufficient to lead the Court to order a preparatory inquiry in this respect.
4. Concerning the preparatory inquiry requested by the applicant
IV —. Costs
On these grounds, Upon reading the pleadings; Upon hearing the report of the Judge-Rapporteur; Upon hearing the parties; Upon hearing the opinion of the Advocate-General; Having regard to the respective Protocols on the Statutes of the Court of Justice of the ECSC, the EEC and tie EAEC; Having regard to the Staff Regulations of the ECSC, the EEC and the EAEC; Having regard to the relevant Regulations applicable to the other servants of those Communities; Having regard to the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice of the European Communities, especially Articles 69 and 70; THE COURT (Second Chamber) hereby :
I Rejects Application No 23/64 as unfounded;
2 Orders the applicant to pay the costs, including those concerning the application for legal aid, with the exception of the costs of the defendant.