Keywords
Summary

Keywords

++++

1 . Action for annulment - Measures against which an action may be brought - Concept - Measures producing binding legal effects - Perparatory measures - Excluded

( EEC Treaty, Art . 173 )

2 . Officials - Actions - Act adversely affecting the official - Preparatory measure - Appointment of members of the selection board for a competition - Right of action limited to an objection of illegality

( Staff Regulations, Arts 90 and 91 )

3 . Officals - Actions - Prior complaint through official channels - Formal conditions - Must be sufficiently explicit

( Staff Regulations, Art . 90(2 ) )

4 . Officials - Recruitment - Competition - Selection board - Composition - Members not qualified to assess tests objectively - Not permissible - Use of qualified examiners - No difference ( Staff Regulations, Art . 27; Annex III, Art . 3 )

5 . Officials - Actions - Judgment annulling a measure - Effects - Annulment of decision not to award a candidate in a competition the required number of points - Obligations of the appointing authority

( Staff Regulations, Art . 91 )

Summary

1 . Only measures producing binding legal effects of such a kind as to affect the applicant' s interests by bringing about a distinct change in his legal position constitute acts or decisions against which an action for annulment may be brought . In the case of acts or decisions adopted by a procedure involving several stages, in particular where they are the culmination of an internal procedure, an act is open to review only if it is a measure definitively laying down the position of the institution on the conclusion of that procedure, and not a provisional measure intended to pave the way for the final decision .

2 . Acts preparatory to a decision do not adversely affect an official within the meaning of Article 90(2 ) of the Staff Regulations and therefore can be contested only incidentally in an action against measures capable of being annulled .

The decision appointing the members of a selection board is a preparatory measure within the competition procedure .

3 . Even though a complaint need not adhere to standard formulations in order to be valid, it must nevertheless be sufficiently explicit to enable the institution to which it is addressed to respond appropriately .

4 . A selection board in a competition for interpreters whose composition does not include any voting member fulfilling the twofold requirement of perfect command of the language into which the candidate is interpreting and actual professional experience as a conference interpreter must be regarded as improperly constituted . The composition of such a selection board cannot guarantee an objective assessment of the candidates' professional qualities in their performance in the oral tests; nor, contrary to the requirements of the principle of sound administration, is such a selection board in a position to assure the institution that the recruitment process will secure for it, in accordance with Article 27 of the Staff Regulations, the services of officials of the highest standards of ability .

The opinion of several examiners who are interpeters with a command of the target language for the competition cannot compensate for the improper composition of the selection board, since appraisal of the essential aspects of the candidates' performance would fall exclusively to the examiners, they alone being qualified to assess that performance .

5 . In the event of annulment of the selection board' s decision not to award the candidate the number of points needed to enable him to take part in the optional tests in an open competition organized to constitute a reserve for recruitment, the rights of the applicant are adequately safeguarded if the appointing authority reopens the competition as far as the applicant is concerned, there being no need to call in question the results of the competition as a whole or to annul the appointments made on the basis of it .