Traduction de «Fonction publique de référence » (Français → Anglais) :

THE EUROPEAN UNION CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL,

Furthermore, the fact that the Commission, as it accepted at the hearing before the Court in reply to a question from the bench, never referred expressly, at first instance, to Article 44(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal is of no consequence, since the Tribunal was required, of its own motion, to choose the appropriate procedural measure to complete the preliminary investigation of the case adequately.

For the purposes of the present appeal, it must first be stated that the Civil Service Tribunal recalled that any decision relating to a specific individual which is taken under the Staff Regulations and adversely affects that person must state the reasons on which it is based, on the one hand, to enable the competent court to review the legality of the decision and, on the other, to provide the person concerned with the information necessary to allow him to ascertain whether or not the decision is well founded and to enable him to decide whether to bring an action. It added, however, referring to Case C‑254/95 P Parliament v Innamorati ...[+++][1996] ECR I‑3423, paragraphs 24 to 28, that, as far as concerns decisions taken by a selection board in a competition, the obligation to state reasons must be reconciled with observance of the secrecy surrounding the proceedings of selection boards by virtue of Article 6 of Annex III to the Staff Regulations, secrecy which was instituted with a view to guaranteeing the independence of selection boards and the objectivity of their proceedings. Thus, observance of this secrecy precludes both disclosure of the attitudes adopted by individual members of selection boards and disclosure of any factors relating to individual or comparative assessments of candidates and that the obligation to state the reasons on which decisions of a selection board in a competition are based must take account of the nature of the proceedings concerned, which, at the stage of examination of the abilities of the candidates, are primarily comparative in character and accordingly covered by the secrecy inherent in those proceedings (paragraphs 30 and 31 of the judgment under appeal).

In that regard, the Civil Service Tribunal took the view that while the examiners marking the written tests, in contrast to the members of the selection board sitting in the oral phase, may admittedly not be known to the persons concerned, and are thereby protected from interference and pressures to which the judgment in Parliament v Innamorati, paragraph 16 above, refers, that circumstance does not objectively justify the existence of significant differences between the requirements concerning the statement of reasons in the case of failure in the written phase, as those requirements are formulated in the case-law cited in paragraph 39 ...[+++]of the judgment under appeal, and those advocated by the Commission in the case of failure in the oral test, which, in particular in the instant case, would consist in giving the applicant only his eliminatory individual mark.

EUROPA - EU law and publications - EUR-Lex - EUR-Lex - 62008FO0048 - EN - Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 30 October 2008. Antonio Ortega Serrano v Commission of the European Communities. Public service - Manifest inadmissibility. Cases F-48/08 and F-48/08 AJ.

* an extended definition of "public authorities" so that government at national, regional and local level is covered as well as persons who perform public administrative functions under national law, including specific duties, activities or services in relation to the environment, and other persons who have public responsibilities or functions, or providing public services, in relation to the environment under the control of Government or those performing public administrative functions