Background
The European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) conducted Open Competition EPSO/AD/380/19 to recruit administrators (grades AD 7 and AD 9) in international cooperation and development aid. The appellant (VT) participated and reached the assessment centre stage, where written tests were scheduled for 9 September 2021. Technical problems during that first session prompted EPSO to offer all candidates two options: retain their results or retake the tests in a second session on 10 November 2021. VT chose not to participate in the second session.
The selection board rejected VT’s application for inclusion on the AD 7 reserve list on 5 May 2022, citing insufficient marks in the assessment centre tests. On 15 July 2022, the board rejected his request for review. VT subsequently challenged this decision before the General Court of the European Union, which dismissed his action on 10 July 2024. VT appealed to the Court of Justice.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Justice found that the General Court had erred in law by focusing on the selection board’s intent rather than objective conditions. The principle of equal treatment in EU staff competitions requires that all candidates be subject to equivalent tests under equivalent conditions with substantially the same degree of difficulty. The Court held that the selection board must examine objectively—independently of any stated intention—whether procedural differences conferred significant advantages on candidates.
The Court found a critical inequity: candidates who took the second session of written tests on 10 November 2021 had more than two months additional preparation time compared to VT, because the test scenario had been published in advance and was the same in both sessions. This extended preparation period, combined with insights gained from the first session, objectively created significantly different and unequal conditions between candidates. The selection board adopted no corrective measures—such as publishing a new scenario or applying a compensatory corrective factor—to remedy this inequality.
The Court concluded that this unequal treatment infringed the principle of equal treatment, created an inequality of opportunity beyond that inherent in normal competition, and vitiated the competition outcome. Accordingly, the Court annulled the decision excluding VT from the reserve list and set aside the General Court’s judgment.
Key Takeaways
- Equal treatment in EU staff competitions is judged by objective conditions and their effects, not the selection board’s subjective intent or lack thereof.
- Significantly longer preparation time for the same test material, particularly when scenarios are pre-published, creates legally impermissible inequality between candidates.
- Selection boards must proactively implement corrective measures (revised test scenarios, compensatory factors) when offering remedial test sessions to remedy procedural irregularities.
- Courts review whether all candidates faced equivalent conditions with substantially the same degree of difficulty, focusing on what actually occurred rather than what was intended.
Why It Matters
This judgment reinforces that the EU’s equal treatment principle in civil service recruitment is not satisfied by neutral procedures or good faith; it requires demonstrable equivalence in the conditions and difficulty of tests across all candidates. The decision has implications for EPSO and other EU institutions when offering remedial or repeated testing sessions following procedural irregularities. It establishes that unequal preparation time—whether resulting from pre-published materials or longer intervals between sessions—must be affirmatively addressed through alternative test designs or objective compensation mechanisms.
For applicants and legal practitioners, the judgment confirms robust judicial scrutiny of administrative discretion in staff selection and signals that procedural defects affecting test conditions will be remedied even after the General Court has upheld the administration’s decision. The ruling may require changes to how EPSO manages repeat or multi-session testing to ensure true equal treatment across all cohorts of candidates.