Judgment No. 2210
1. THE IMPUGNED DECISION IS SET ASIDE.
2. THE AGENCY SHALL PAY THE COMPLAINANT 1,000 EUROS IN MORAL DAMAGES.
3. IT SHALL ALSO PAY HER 1,000 EUROS IN COSTS.
4. ALL OTHER CLAIMS ARE DISMISSED.
The Agency considers that the complainant has no cause of action (to challenge the outcome of a competition) since she holds a post corresponding to her wishes and did not apply for a post which is, according to the organisation, very similar to the disputed post. The Tribunal states that: "all staff members are entitled to compete in accordance with the conditions laid down in the applicable provisions. Staff members are free to choose whether or not to apply for a competition, provided that they do not abuse this right."
complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; receivability of the complaint; cause of action; appointment; competition; candidate; post; right
"Where a reserve recruitment list is resorted to, the vacant post is filled without applying the competition procedure provided for in the above-mentioned provisions. Staff members must be given the possibility of entering competitions on the basis of which reserve lists for filling 'similar' posts are to be established. That possibility is denied them if they do not know what is meant by 'similar' posts. [...] The broader the definition of 'similar', the greater the risk of such occurrences. The requirements of equal treatment, objectivity and transparency in appointment procedures place the [organisation] under an obligation to provide a clear and precise definition of the concept of a 'similar' post. [...] It is the responsibility of the [organisation] to specify, in notices of competition, the nature of the posts which can be considered to be 'similar' for the purposes of any subsequent use of a reserve list."
complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; equal treatment; good faith; organisation's duties; vacancy; appointment; competition; candidate; vacancy notice; definition; right; same