JUDGMENT OF 2. 10. 1979 — CASE 178/78 SZEMEREY v COMMISSION

In Case 178/78

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

gives the following

JUDGMENT

Facts and Issues

I — Facts and procedure

II — Conclusions of the parties

III — Submissions and arguments of the parties

IV — Oral procedure

Decision

Costs

I —. Facts and procedure

1. By Notice of Competition No COM/A/154 (Official Journal C 213 of 7 September 1977, p. 9) the Commission organized an open competition, based on tests, to constitute a reserve of administrators in Grades 7 and 6 of Category A. The duties relating to the posts to be filled are in the following fields: general administration, administration of research activities, external relations, information, financial and budgetary affairs and social affairs.

2. The applicant, who is a British national, is employed by the Commission, as an official in Category B, Grade 3, in the staff information service. On 6 October 1977 he applied to enter the above-mentioned competition and selected as his option the field of information. By letter of 5 December 1977 the Directorate-General for Personnel and Administration of the Commission informed the applicant of the refusal of the selection board for the competition to enter his name on the list of candidates admitted to the written tests and gave the following reason for the refusal: your qualifications were not considered adequate (the formula used in the standard letter).

3. The present application was lodged on 24 August 1978.

II —. Conclusions of the parties

1. The applicant claims that the Court should.

2. The Commission contends that the Court should:

III —. Submissions and arguments of the parties

1. The applicant maintains, first, that the decision to reject his application conflicts with the second paragraph of Article 25 of the Staff Regulations, since the reasons on which it is based are not stated sufficiently clearly. In fact, the statement of those reasons does not make clear which qualifications were considered to be inadequate or insufficient.

2. The Commission observes that the submission based on the insufficient statement of reasons for the decision of the selection board not to accept the applicant's application is in fact unfounded since the letter sent to him on 5 December 1977 refers to the lack of any university qualifications as the reason for the refusal.

IV —. Oral procedure

1. The application, which was lodged on 24 August 1978, seeks the annulment of Open Competition No COM/A/154 organized by the Commission in order to constitute a reserve of administrators in the career bracket covering Grades 7 and 6 of Category A. The application arises out of the fact that having applied to enter that competition the applicant was refused admission to the written tests by decision of the selection board on the ground that his qualifications were not considered adequate.

2. The first submission relied on by the applicant concerns the special conditions for admission fixed by the notice of competition. In accordance with those conditions a candidate had to have both a university education, with degree or diploma, in a field appropriate to the option chosen by him and practical experience, obtained after graduation, also relevant to that option. The applicant maintains that this double condition is incompatible with the second subparagraph of Article 5 (1) of the Staff Regulations of Officials, according to which posts in Category A require, as alternative and not cumulative conditions, either university education or equivalent professional experience.

3. That complaint however cannot be accepted. As the Court has already held in its judgment of 5 April 1979 in Case 117/78, Orlandi v Commission of the European Communities, the provisions of Article 5 of the Staff Regulations seek to provide a general definition of the minimum level required for an official of the category in question drawn up according to the nature of the duties to which the posts correspond and do not concern conditions of recruitment. Those are governed by the provisions of Article 29 and Annex III to the Staff Regulations and there is nothing to prevent this notice of competition from fixing conditions in relation to certain posts or certain categories of posts which are more rigorous than those which correspond to the minimum requirements resulting from the classification of posts, whether such conditions are fixed in order to fill a specific vacant post or for the purpose of constituting a reserve with which to fill posts in a certain category.

4. The second complaint is based upon the first paragraph of Article 27 of the Staff Regulations, according to which:

5. That complaint must also be rejected. The requirement of possession of a university degree or diploma in addition to practical experience is generally, in all normal and typical cases, calculated to ensure that that provision is complied with and indeed to comply with it still further. In fixing that double condition the notice of competition does not conflict with the Staff Regulations. It is impossible to maintain, as the applicant does, that the candidates who are nationals of certain Member Stares thereby suffer a disadvantage. The combination of an academic education and practical experience does not seem to be a characteristic of candidates from certain Member States in contrast to those from others. Candidates with substantial practical experience although without a university degree or diploma may be found among the nationals of all the Member States.

6. The applicant also maintains that by refusing to allow him admission to the written tests the selection board for the competition infringed the terms of the notice of competition which oblige it to allow for differences in national education systems. More particularly, the selection board failed to make allowance in his case for the special features of the education system in the United Kingdom.

7. In that connexion it is established that the applicant has not completed a university education in his country of origin, that is, the United Kingdom. That has, however, nothing to do with the education system in that country. The conditions of admission to a university course leading to a degree are no more restrictive in the United Kingdom than in the other Member States. Furthermore, the applicant began a course of study at university level in London without, however, pursuing it to the end. It may be necessary to make allowances for the differences in education systems referred to in the notice of competition where it is necessary to discover whether the degree or diploma possessed by a candidate relates to the field of duties which he has selected. However, that problem does not arise in this instance, since the applicant does not possess a university degree or diploma.

8. Finally, the applicant contests the refusal of the selection board on the ground that no sufficient statement of reasons was given for the decision. It is true that in certain other cases relating to the same competition (judgment of 30 November 1978 in Joined Cases 4, 19 and 28/78, Salerno and Others v Commission of the European Communities [1978] ECR 2403) the Court held that inadequate reasons were given for a refusal which contained, as the only statement of the reasons on which it was based, a mere reference to an item in a standard letter. In those cases it was impossible to discover to which of the components making up the conditions required the reference related. In this instance, on the other hand, there can be no doubt that it is the lack of any university degree or diploma which is the reason for the refusal and it is, moreover, in that sense that the applicant himself understood it. In those circumstances the statement of reasons given in this instance cannot be declared inadequate.

9. As none of the submissions has been upheld the application must be dismissed.

10. Under Article 69 (2) of the Rules of Procedure, the unsuccessful party shall be ordered to pay the costs. As the applicant has failed in his submissions he must be ordered to pay the costs.

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

1 Dismisses the application;

2 Orders the pasties to bear their own costs.