JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Fourth Chamber)

31 January 2002

Case T-206/00

Merja Hult

v

Commission of the European Communities

‛Officials — Grading — Statement of grounds — Article 32 of the Staff Regulations — Commission Decision on the criteria applicable to grade and step classification upon recruitment — Additional seniority in grade — Conditions — Principle of legal certainty’

Full text in French   II-81

Application for:

annulment of the decision of the Commission of 8 October 1999 fixing, with effect from 16 January 1999, the applicant's definitive classification in Grade A 7, step 1.

Held:

The decision of the Commission of 8 October 1999 fixing, with effect from 16 January 99, the applicant's definitive classification in Grade A 7, step 1, is annulled. The Commission is ordered to pay the costs.

Summary

1. Officials — Decision adversely affecting an official — Obligation to state grounds — Scope

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

2. Community law — Principles — Legal certainty — Meaning

3. Officials — Recruitment — Step classification — Additional seniority in grade — Taking into consideration of professional experience — Rules laid down by the Commission — Taking into account of professional experience gained subsequent to the qualification giving access to the competition — Refusal on the basis of a condition attaching to the qualification but not mentioned in the notice of competition — Not permissible

   (Staff Regulations, Art. 32, second para.)

1.  The obligation to state grounds, laid down by the second paragraph of Article 25 of the Staff Regulations, is intended, on the one hand, to provide the person concerned with sufficient information to determine whether the decision taken by the administration was well founded and whether it is appropriate to bring proceedings before the Court and, on the other, to enable the Court to carry out its review. The extent of the obligation must be considered in the light of the specific circumstances of the case, in particular the content of the measure, the nature of the grounds relied upon and the interest which the addressee may have in receiving an explanation. In order to assess whether a statement of grounds is sufficient, it must therefore be viewed in the original context in which the contested act was adopted.

   (see paras 27-28)

   See: T-283/97 Thinus v Commission [1999] ECR-SC-I-A-69 and II-353, paras 73 and 77, and the case-law cited; T-10/99 Vicente Nunez v Commission [2000] ECRSC I-A-47 and II-203, para. 41

2.  The principle of legal certainty aims to ensure that situations and legal relationships governed by Community law remain foreseeable. To that end, it is essential that the Community institutions observe the principle that they may not alter measures which they have adopted and which affect the legal and factual situation of persons, so that they may amend those acts only in accordance with the rules on competence and procedure.

   (see para. 38)

   See: T-229/94 Deutsche Bahn v Commission [1997] ECR II-1689, para. 113, and the case-law cited

3.  Under Article 32 of the Staff Regulations and Articles 2 and 3 of the Commission Decision of 1 September 1983 on the criteria applicable to grade and step classification upon recruitment, it is the qualification required by the notice of competition which determines not only whether a candidate is admitted to the competition by the selection board, but also the additional seniority in grade allowed on recruitment by the appointing authority on the basis of the professional experience gained by the person concerned after obtaining that qualification. The appointing authority cannot therefore refuse that additional seniority on the ground that the official's qualification does not satisfy a requirement which is not mentioned in the notice of competition.

   (see paras 48-49)

   See: T-2/90 Ferreira de Freitas v Commission [1991] ECR II-103, para. 57