Judgment of the General Court (Appeal Chamber) 23 April 2015

In Case T‑352/13 P, APPEAL against the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 24 April 2013, in BX v Commission (F‑88/11, ECR-SC, EU:F:2013:51), seeking to have that judgment set aside,

THE GENERAL COURT (Appeal Chamber), composed of M. Jaeger, President, M. Prek and G. Berardis (Rapporteur), Judges, Registrar: E. Coulon,

having regard to the written procedure,

gives the following

Judgment

Facts

Proceedings at first instance and judgment under appeal

The appeal

1. Procedure and forms of order sought

2. Law

The first ground of appeal alleging, in essence, that the Civil Service Tribunal was wrong to find that the appellant had not met the requirements regarding the standard of proof

The second ground of appeal, alleging that the Civil Service Tribunal erred in law in stating that a candidate whose initial mark was below the pass mark in accordance with pre-established criteria is not entitled to a comparative assessment

The first part, alleging that all candidates are entitled to a comparative assessment

The second part, alleging that the selection board breached its duty to conduct a comparative assessment not only with regard to the appellant, but also with regard to all the other candidates in the oral test

The third part, alleging that insufficient account was taken of the evidence and arguments adduced

The third ground of appeal, alleging that the Civil Service Tribunal erred in law in finding that the principle of equal treatment was not infringed

The fourth ground of appeal, alleging an infringement concerning the composition of the selection board

Admissibility

Substance

– The first part, alleging an unbalanced composition of the selection board, in accordance with the fifth paragraph of Article 3 of Annex III to the Staff Regulations

– The third part, alleging, in essence, infringement of the principle of stability of the selection board at the stage of re-examining the appellant’s file

The sixth ground of appeal, concerning compensation for non-material damage

The fifth ground of appeal, alleging that the Civil Service Tribunal was wrong to order the applicant to pay the costs, where the decisions to reject his previous administrative complaints were based on erroneous grounds

Costs

1 Language of the case: English.