Staff case summary

Staff case summary

Summary

1. Officials – Competitions – Selection board – Decision not to admit to tests

(Staff Regulations, Art. 25, second para.)

2. Officials – Non-contractual liability of the institutions – Conditions – Unlawfulness – Damage – Causal link

1. The requirement that a decision adversely affecting a person should state the reasons on which it is based is intended to provide the person concerned with sufficient details to allow him to ascertain whether or not the decision is well founded and make it possible for the decision to be the subject of judicial review. As regards more particularly decisions of refusal of admission to a competition it is necessary for the selection board to state clearly the conditions in the notice of competition which it considers the candidate has not satisfied.

(see para. 22)

See:

69/83 Lux v Court of Auditors [1984] ECR 2447, para. 36

T-55/91 Fascilla v Parliament [1992] ECR II‑1757, para. 32; T‑145/02 Petrich v Commission [2004] ECR-SC I‑A‑101 and II‑447, para. 54; T-376/03 Hendrickx v Council [2005] ECR-SC I‑A‑83 and II‑379, para. 68

2. The Community can only be held liable for damages if a number of conditions are satisfied as regards the illegality of the allegedly wrongful act committed by the institutions, the actual harm suffered, and the existence of a causal link between the act and the damage alleged to have been suffered.

In order to establish such a link, evidence must be adduced that there is a direct causal nexus between the fault committed by the Community institution concerned and the injury pleaded.

In the particular context of a competition, the degree of certainty of the causal link is attained where the unlawful act committed by a Community institution has definitely deprived a person, not necessarily of appointment to the post in question, to which the person concerned could never prove he had a right, but of a genuine chance of being appointed, resulting in material damage for the person concerned in the form of loss of income.

(see paras 38, 40-41)

See:

111/86 Delauche v Commission [1987] ECR 5345, para. 30

T-3/92 Latham v Commission [1994] ECR-SC I‑A‑23 and II‑83, para. 63; T‑589/93 Ryan-Sheridan v Eurofound [1996] ECR-SC I‑A‑27 and II‑77, para. 141; T-45/01 Sanders and Others v Commission [2004] ECR II‑3315, paras 149 and 150; T-250/04 Combescot v Commission [2007] ECR-SC I‑A‑2‑0000 and II‑A‑2‑0000, paras 95 and 96

F-46/07 Tzirani v Commission [2008] ECR-SC I‑A‑1‑0000 and II‑A‑1‑0000, para. 215