JUDGMENT OF 5. 4. 1979 — CASE 112/78 KOBOR v COMMISSION

In Case 112/78

THE COURT (Second Chamber) composed of: Lord Mackenzie Stuart, President of Chamber, M. Sørensen and A. Touffait, Judges, Advocate General: F. Capotorti Registrar: J. A. Pompe

gives the following

JUDGMENT

Facts and Issues

I — Facts and procedure

II — Conclusions of the parties

III — Submissions and arguments of the parties

Observations of the applicant

Observations of the Commission

IV — Oral procedure

Decision

Costs

I —. Facts and procedure

II —. Conclusions of the parties

III —. Submissions and arguments of the parties

IV —. Oral procedure

1. The application, lodged on 8 May 1978, seeks the annulment of the decision of the selection board for Competition No COM/B/155, communicated to the applicant on 23 September 1977, by which the board refused to allow her to take part in the tests relating to the competition.

2. The competition was organized by the Commission for the purpose of constituting a reserve of administrative assistants in Grades 5 and 4 of Category B.

3. The duties attaching to the posts to be filled were defined in relation to four different areas, one of which was the application of rules of administrative management, from amongst which the candidates had to indicate their choice.

4. Under the special conditions for admission the notice of competition provided the candidates had, first, to have completed a course of secondary education and received a final certificate and, secondly, to have at least one year's practical experience in the field chosen after obtaining their educational qualifications.

5. The applicant, who, in applying for the post, selected the field relating to the application of rules of administrative management, was refused admission to the competition on the ground that her practical experience was insufficient.

6. In support of her application the applicant claims that the refusal of the selection board is either the result of manifest error or of an erroneous assessment as regards her practical experience.

7. In that regard she recalls, first, that when she took part in earlier competitions, in particular, in Competition No COM/B/139 in 1975, whose requirements in that respect were the same as those laid down for the competition in question, her practical experience had been considered to be sufficient and, secondly, that the periodic reports drawn up with regard to her since then stated that she had performed certain duties which testify to such experience.

8. Furthermore, she claims that the statement of reasons given for the selection board's refusal was insufficient.

9. In its defence the Commission states that since each competition constitutes a separate procedure there is no reason to compare the appraisals made of a single candidate by different selection boards in the context of successive competitions.

10. Furthermore, it is claimed that the severity of the appraisal is dependent upon the quantity and quality of the applications, which increase greatly year by year.

11. Although the fact that a large number of candidates apply to take part in a competition may justify a rigorous selection by means of eliminatory tests it cannot be accepted that the objective requirements for admission to the tests, which are formulated in identical terms, should be given a different interpretation from one competition to another in the light of the number of candidates.

12. In any event, a candidate cannot form the subject of a less favourable appraisal than that made of him in. a previous competition, unless the statement of the reasons on which the decision is based clearly justifies such a difference of appraisal.

13. In that respect there is no sufficient statement of reasons for the refusal to admit the applicant to the tests relating to the competition in question.

14. In fact, the only statement of reasons contained in the standard letter in which the selection board's refusal was communicated to the applicant was a reference to the condition which was not fulfilled.

15. The condition laid down by the notice of competition, which related to the need for candidates to have at least one year's practical experience in the field chosen after having obtained their educational qualifications was composed of several elements, so that a reference to the condition as a whole was not of such a nature as to indicate which of the factors had been found to be lacking.

16. Although it is permissible, having regard to the large number of candidates, to make use of summarized statements of reasons, a mere reference to the condition which was not fulfilled cannot however satisfy the requirement to state reasons where such a reference is not capable of providing the person concerned with a sufficient indication to allow him to know whether the refusal is well founded or on the other hand whether it is vitiated by a defect which would make it possible to contest its legality.

17. The selection board's refusal must therefore be annulled.

18. Under Article 69 (2) of the Rules of Procedure, the unsuccessful party shall be ordered to pay the costs.

19. As the defendant has failed in its submissions it must be ordered to pay the costs.

On those grounds, THE COURT (Second Chamber) hereby:

1 Annuls the decision communicated to Mrs Kobor by letter of 23 September 1977 by which the Selection Board for Competition No COM/B/155 refused to allow her to take part in the tests relating to that competition;

2 Orders the Commission to pay the costs.