Strasbourg, 1 December 2006

Dear Mr G.,

On 21 June 2005, you complained to the European Ombudsman about Open Competitions EPSO/AD/5/05, EPSO/AD/6/05 and EPSO/AD/7/05, which had been organised simultaneously and contained a clause that candidates could only apply for one of them.

On 31 August 2005, I forwarded your complaint to the Director of EPSO. EPSO sent its opinion on 22 November 2005. On 19 December 2005, I asked the Director of EPSO to provide further information and relevant supporting documents concerning a statement in EPSO's opinion. EPSO sent further information on 12 January 2006. I forwarded the opinion together with further information from EPSO to you with an invitation to make observations, which you sent on 30 April 2006.

I am writing now to let you know the results of the inquiries that I have made into your complaint.

THE COMPLAINT

The complainant filed a complaint regarding Open Competitions EPSO/AD/5/05, EPSO/AD/6/05 and EPSO/AD/7/05, published on 19 May 2005(1), with the purpose of constituting a reserve pool from which to recruit linguistic administrators at grade AD*5 and to recruit linguistic administrators (heads of unit) in the field of translation at grades AD*9 and AD*12. A clause in each notice of competition provided that candidates could apply for only one of these competitions(2). On 30 May 2005, the complainant wrote to EPSO to contest this clause. He asked EPSO to change the conditions and allow the candidates to apply for more than one competition at the same time.

On 15 June 2005, EPSO replied to the complainant informing him, in summary, that under the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communities it is the appointing authority which draws up the notices of open competitions. When deciding on the conditions and methods to organise competitions, it has a broad margin of discretion, depending on the vacancies to be filled and the interests of the service. As regards the organisation of the competitions in question, it was emphasised that the appointing authority inserted the clause concerning the prohibition on candidates' applying for different competitions for a specific reason and that it did so in the interests of the service and in the interests of the candidates because, in cases of competitions likely to involve mass participation, it is essential to be able to manage the length of procedures and to benefit from a partly joint management, whilst respecting the principles of proportionality in methods used and ensuring sound administration. With such a clause, the appointing authority aimed to avoid cases where candidates admitted to a competition are prevented from participating in the tests because they might be scheduled to participate in the tests of another competition, also organised by EPSO on the same day. It is important that candidates themselves choose the competition for which they judge themselves better qualified, since under Article 27 of the Staff Regulations "recruitment shall be directed to securing for the institution the services of officials of the highest standard of ability, efficiency and integrity". By introducing the clause, it was not the intention of the appointing authority to exclude certain candidates but to oblige them to make a choice which would allow them to better evaluate whether they should apply or not, whilst trying to ensure a more efficient management of the recruitment procedure.

In his complaint to the European Ombudsman, the complainant stated that he considered EPSO's reply to be unsatisfactory, since he believed that he had the right to apply and have access to any position within the EU institutions for which he fulfils the formal conditions.

The complainant alleged that EPSO had wrongly prevented him from participating in all three Open Competitions (EPSO/AD/5/05, EPSO/AD/6/05 and EPSO/AD/7/05), and claimed that EPSO should allow him and other candidates to participate in all of them.

THE INQUIRY

EPSO's opinion

In its opinion, EPSO made the following comments:

Background

The purpose of all three Open Competitions EPSO/AD/5/05 (A*5), EPSO/AD/6/05 (A*9), and EPSO/AD/7/05 (A*12) was to draw up reserve lists from which to recruit linguistic administrators in the field of translation into the languages of nine of the new Member States(3). Candidates were alerted to the fact that the tests for these competitions might be held simultaneously. Candidates were therefore instructed to apply for one of the competitions only. Both the description of duties and the eligibility (profile sought) were different for each competition.

On 30 May 2005, the complainant contacted EPSO alleging that the clause specifying that the candidates could only apply for one of the competitions restricted his right to apply for the competition for linguistic administrators and the competitions for two levels of the heads of unit in the field of translation. He requested that EPSO change the conditions of admission to the competitions so as to enable him to apply for all competitions for which he considered himself eligible.

On 15 June 2005, EPSO informed the complainant of the reasons for which it had introduced the clause in the notices of competitions (see above).

Complaint to the Ombudsman

In its opinion on the complaint to the Ombudsman, EPSO added that the Staff Regulations and the Decision establishing a European Personnel Selection Office(4) provide that EPSO is responsible for drawing up reserve lists from open competitions referred to in the Staff Regulations. It was thus for EPSO to organise competitions on behalf of the Community institutions on the basis of common principles relating to a harmonised selection and recruitment policy, the principles of the selection policy to be implemented, the work programme, as well as the scheduling of and timetable for competitions, as approved by EPSO's Management Board.

The rules governing organisation of competitions are decided in accordance with the principles of proportionality and in the spirit of good and sound administration. The disputed clause meets the aforementioned requirements when several competitions are being conducted simultaneously. It had been introduced in the interests of the service and of the candidates, since, in the case of competitions with high levels of participation (almost 7 400 applicants in the above three competitions combined), it was important to be able to manage the length of the proceedings and comply with the principles of proportionality and sound administration. The issues relating to organisation of competitions with high levels of participation concern not only the available dates, but also the availability of rooms suitable for a very large number of applicants. These two constraints can cause delays of one or more months, and thus result in a prolongation of the duration of the selection procedures. When introducing this clause, the appointing authority had no intention of excluding certain applicants but only of obliging them to make a choice which would better enable them to decide if they should submit an application and, at the same time, improving the management of the recruitment procedures. The prohibition of double (or triple) applications was not a disproportionate measure, considering the very large number of candidates whose tests might be significantly delayed in seeking to satisfy the interest of a few applicants who might be eligible to take part in several competitions published and organised jointly.

The complainant applied for Open Competition EPSO/AD/7/05 (for the AD*12 grade), for which the tests were held on 11 November 2005. The tests of other two competitions were held on the same day. It would have been impossible for an applicant to have taken part in all three competitions. This fact demonstrated the validity of including the clause in the notices of competitions.

EPSO also drew the Ombudsman's attention "to the fact that, in connection with an appeal lodged in 2003 with the Court of First Instance(5) by an applicant against an identical clause, the President convinced the applicant to withdraw her appeal by making it clear that it had no chance of succeeding, thereby confirming the reasonable nature of such a clause."

EPSO could not accept the complainant's request for permission to take part in all three competitions or for the procedures governing the organisation of competitions to be changed.

Request for further information
Request

After careful consideration of EPSO's opinion, it appeared that further information should be obtained from EPSO. The Ombudsman therefore asked EPSO to provide more detailed information and any relevant supporting documents regarding its statement that "in connection with an appeal lodged in 2003 with the Court of First Instance by an applicant against an identical clause, the President convinced the applicant to withdraw her appeal by making it clear that it had no chance of succeeding, thereby confirming the reasonable nature of such a clause."

Further information from EPSO

In response to the Ombudsman's request for further information , EPSO informed the Ombudsman that the information concerning the appeal mentioned in its opinion "result[ed] from the conclusions reached by the President in hearing (...) case [T-89/03 R]". EPSO provided the Ombudsman with a copy of the Commission's observations to the President of the Court of First Instance on a request for interim measures. In the part of those observations relevant to the present case, that is, concerning a clause in a competition notice obliging candidates to choose which of the simultaneously organised competitions they wanted to participate in, the Commission argued, in summary, as follows:

The purpose of the clause is to allow all competitions to be completed as soon as possible. This is in the interests of the institutions that want to recruit new staff and in the interests of the candidates, who want to have a result as soon as possible and to be put on the reserve list at the earliest date, if they succeed. When several competitions are to take place at the same time, the institution has to make the appropriate preparations, which include hiring the premises where tests are to take place, that is, hiring premises in all Member States, and necessarily on the same day in order to ensure the confidentiality of the tests and thus equal treatment of all candidates. In these circumstances it is, for reasons of convenience and for budgetary reasons, desirable, if not indispensable, to hire the same premises for several days so that a given stage of all competitions can be carried out at the same time. This allows the administration to reduce costs through group bookings and also speeds up the competition process. Moreover, when two or more competitions are run in parallel, there is an obvious risk that a candidate who takes part in both/all competitions will encounter a clash of dates at some point since a test for each competition may take place on the same day. It is therefore important that the candidates choose, at the very beginning, the competition in which they wish to participate in to avoid such clashes.

The alternative would have been to organise the competitions on different dates whereas the institutions' interest is to recruit successful candidates in all competitions as soon as possible, which is also in the interests of the candidates. The candidates are allowed to apply for only one of the competitions in order not to create unreasonable difficulties for the administration (for example, related to the organisation of the competitions) and delays harmful to the interests of other candidates. If EPSO had to find the means in order to allow candidates to take part in all of the competitions, the interests of the majority of the candidates would have to be subordinated to the interests of the few candidates who could potentially apply for several competitions.

EPSO concluded that that the arguments put forward in the Commission's observations on a request for interim measure in Case T-89/03 R can be considered to have been indirectly accepted by the Court of First Instance.

The complainant's observations

In his observations, the complainant made the following remarks:

The EU institutions are not private entities that may deliberately impose limitations but rather public institutions and must, as such, enable free access to any position. If they have chosen to select their personnel through competitions, they should assume also the consequences of this choice, that is, many candidates and long procedures. EPSO did not comment on his argument that he has the right and should have also the possibility to apply for all positions for which he fulfils the formal conditions. It rather emphasised that he had to decide on one of many positions, whereas he believed that he should have free access to any and all positions that he could apply for. EPSO could decide to organise a single competition in order to fulfil all the yearly recruitment needs of the institutions, thus effectively preventing the candidates from registering for positions for which they fulfil the formal criteria.

The complainant maintained that Open Competitions EPSO/AD/5/05, EPSO/AD/6/05 and EPSO/AD/7/05 should not have been held jointly and that a solution should have been found in order to allow him to apply for all three competitions.

THE DECISION

1 Allegation that EPSO wrongly prevented the complainant from participating in all three Open Competitions (EPSO/AD/5/05, EPSO/AD/6/05 and EPSO/AD/7/05)

1.1 On 19 May 2005, EPSO published Notices of Competitions EPSO/AD/5/05, EPSO/AD/6/05 and EPSO/AD/7/05(6) for the purpose of drawing up reserve lists from which to recruit linguistic administrators at different grades in the field of translation into languages of nine of the new Member States(7). Candidates were alerted to the fact that the tests for these competitions might be held simultaneously and were therefore instructed to apply for one of these competitions only. Part A of each notice of competition provided:

"A. DUTIES AND ELIGIBILITY (PROFILE SOUGHT)

(...)

Please note that the tests for the above competitions may be held simultaneously. You may therefore apply for one of these competitions only. You must choose which one when you register online (...).

(...)".

The description of duties and the eligibility (profile sought) were different for each competition.

The complainant wrote to EPSO to contest the above-quoted clause in the notices of the three competitions. He asked EPSO to change the admission criteria in order to allow candidates to participate in more than one competition at the same time.

1.2 EPSO informed the complainant, in summary, that in accordance with the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communities, the appointing authority enjoys a large margin of discretion when it adopts the notices of open competitions and lays down the conditions and methods used to organise competitions. The appointing authority inserted the contested clause for a specific reason and it did so in the interests of the service and in the interests of the candidates, for reasons of better time management of the selection procedures, whilst respecting the principles of proportionality in methods used and ensuring sound administration.

It was important that candidates themselves choose the competition for which they judge themselves better qualified, as according to the Staff Regulations "recruitment shall be directed to securing for the institution the services of officials of the highest standard of ability, efficiency and integrity"(8). By introducing this clause, therefore, it was not the intention of the appointing authority to exclude certain candidates but to oblige them to make a choice while, at the same time, trying to ensure a more efficient management of the procedure.

Upon receiving the above reply from EPSO, the complainant filed a complaint with the European Ombudsman alleging that EPSO had wrongly prevented him from participating in all three Open Competitions (EPSO/AD/5/05, EPSO/AD/6/05 and EPSO/AD/7/05).

1.3 In its opinion, and in addition to its above-mentioned reply to the complainant (see point 1.2 above), EPSO stated that the Staff Regulations and the Decision establishing a European Personnel Selection Office(9) provide that it is EPSO's task to organise competitions on behalf of the Community institutions on the basis of common principles and rules approved by EPSO's Management Board. The rules governing organisation of competitions are thus decided by EPSO, in accordance with the principles of proportionality and in the spirit of good and sound administration. The issues relating to the simultaneous organisation of competitions with high levels of participation concern not only the available dates, but also the availability of rooms suitable for a very large number of applicants. These two constraints can cause delays of one or more months, and thus a prolongation of the duration of the selection procedures. The prohibition of double (or triple) applications was not a disproportionate measure, considering the very large number of candidates whose tests might be significantly delayed in seeking to satisfy the interest of a few applicants who might be eligible to take part in several competitions published and organised jointly.

EPSO also drew the Ombudsman's attention "to the fact that, in connection with an appeal lodged in 2003 with the Court of First Instance by an applicant against an identical clause, the President convinced the applicant to withdraw her appeal by making it clear that it had no chance of succeeding, thereby confirming the reasonable nature of such a clause."

1.4 In response to the Ombudsman's request for further information , EPSO informed the Ombudsman that the information concerning the appeal mentioned in its opinion "result[ed] from the conclusions reached by the President in hearing (...) case [T-89/03 R]". EPSO provided the Ombudsman with a copy of the Commission's observations to the President of the Court of First Instance on a request for interim measures. In the part of those observations relevant to the present case, the Commission argued, in summary, as follows:

The purpose of the clause is to allow all competitions to be completed as soon as possible. This is in the interests of the institutions that want to recruit new staff and in the interests of the candidates, who want to have a result as soon as possible and to be put on the reserve list at the earliest date, if they succeed.

When several competitions take place at the same time, the institution has to make the appropriate preparations, which include hiring the premises where tests are to take place, that is, hiring premises in all Member States, and necessarily on the same day in order to ensure the confidentiality of the tests and thus equal treatment of all candidates. In these circumstances it is, for reasons of convenience and for budgetary reasons, desirable, if not indispensable, to hire the same premises for several days so that a given stage of all competitions can be carried out at the same time. This allows the administration to reduce costs through group bookings and also speeds up the competition process. Moreover, when two or more competitions are run in parallel, there is an obvious risk that a candidate who takes part in both/all competitions will encounter a clash of dates at some point, since a test of each competition may take place on the same day. It is therefore important that the candidates choose, at the very beginning, the competition in which they wish to participate in order to avoid such clashes.

The alternative would have been to organise the competitions on different dates whereas the institutions' interest is to recruit successful candidates in all competitions as soon as possible, which is also in the interests of the candidates. The candidates are allowed to apply for only one of the competitions in order not to create unreasonable difficulties for the administration (for example, related to the organisation of the competitions) and delays harmful to the interests of other candidates. If EPSO had to find the means in order to allow candidates to take part in all of the competitions, the interests of the majority of the candidates would have to be subordinated to the interests of the few candidates who could potentially apply for several competitions.

1.5 In his observations, the complainant stated that the EU institutions are not private entities that may deliberately impose limitations but rather public institutions and must, as such, enable free access to any position. He considered that he has the right and should have the possibility to apply for all positions for which he fulfils the formal conditions. The complainant also argued that EPSO could decide to organise a single competition in order to fulfil all the yearly recruitment needs of the institutions, thus effectively preventing the candidates from registering for positions for which they fulfil the formal criteria.

1.6 The Ombudsman first notes that, in accordance with the second paragraph of Article 1 of Annex III of Staff Regulations of the Officials of the European Communities(10), "the notice of open competitions common to two or more institutions shall be drawn up by the appointing authority (...) after consulting the common Joint Committee." It is the established case-law of the Community Courts(11) that the appointing authority "enjoys a wide discretion (...) in determining, (...) in the interest of the service, the rules and conditions under which a competition is organised." In areas in which an administration enjoys a considerable margin of discretion, the scope of the Ombudsman's review of the appointing authority's actions is necessarily limited to determining whether the authority remained within reasonable bounds and has not used its powers in a manifestly incorrect way.

1.7 The Ombudsman notes that the complainant contests, in essence, EPSO's decision to include in the relevant notices of competitions for linguistic administrators a clause obliging the candidates to apply only for one of the competitions published in parallel, since the tests for those competitions could be held simultaneously. The Ombudsman also notes that the complainant based his allegation solely on his consideration that he has the right to apply and should have access to any position within the EU institutions for which he considers that he fulfils formal requirements.

The scope of the Ombudsman's review of EPSO's decision is to examine whether EPSO has used its power in a manifestly incorrect way, when it introduced such a clause in these notices of competitions. The Ombudsman notes in this context that, according to the case-law of Community Courts, the exercise of the considerable margin of discretion in the context of drawing up the notices of competitions "has to be in line with the imperative provisions of Article 27 of the Staff Regulations (...) and that, in doing so, t he choice governed by the wide discretion, that the appointing authority enjoys in this respect, must always be made with reference to the requirements of the posts to be filled and, more generally, the interest of the service."(12)

1.8 The Ombudsman considers it important to clarify that, i n accordance with Article 27 of the Staff Regulations and as recognised in the established case-law of the Community Courts(13), the aim of the recruitment procedures is to secure for the institutions "the services of officials of the highest standard of ability, efficiency and integrity". The purpose of the organisation of recruitment competitions is primarily to serve the institutions' staffing needs and not only, as the complainant appears to consider, to enable the candidates to have free access to a position within the EU institutions.

The Ombudsman also considers it important to clarify from the outset that the competitions in question were not organised for filling any specific positions. They were organised "to constitute a reserve pool from which to recruit" linguistic administrators at three different grades. Even when candidates succeed in the competitions and are placed on the final reserve lists, suitable candidates cannot apply for specific vacant positions within the EU institutions. The Ombudsman recalls, in this context, that even candidates who successfully pass competitions and are put on a reserve list are merely eligible for being offered a position, but do not have a right to be appointed(14). Hence the complainant's argument that the institutions are public bodies and should enable free access of individuals to any position for which they believe they fulfil formal conditions cannot be sustained in light of the above aim and scope of the recruitment procedures.

1.9 The Ombudsman notes that EPSO justifies its decision to organise the tests of the competitions simultaneously with considerations related to a better handling of the recruitment procedures, namely, the time constrains and the financial implications of competitions with a large number of candidates. EPSO also considers this to be both in the interests of the institutions and of the candidates. The Ombudsman considers that this intention appears to be reasonable in light of the legitimate aim of ensuring a sound time-management in competitions and a rational use of the financial resources available. For the reasons stated by EPSO (points 1.3 and 1.4 above), this also appears to be in the interests of both the institutions and the candidates.

The Ombudsman also notes that, in pursuing this aim, EPSO also appears to take into consideration other legitimate organisational aspects, such as the possible clash of dates for tests at different stages of competitions and the issue of ensuring the confidentiality of the tests and equal treatment of all candidates. Taking into account that the organisation of several competitions within the same period of time would, at some stage, pose a serious risk that a candidate who takes part in all competitions will, at some stage, encounter a clash of dates, it does not appear to be contrary to the principles of good administration to oblige them to make their choice in relation to the competition for which they consider themselves best suited at the time of their registration.

The Ombudsman also considers that the alternative solution of obliging EPSO to organise the tests of the competitions in question separately in order to find means to allow potential candidates, who would be in the position to apply for all competitions, to participate in all the relevant tests, would indeed create disproportionate and unreasonable difficulties for the administration and objectively unjustifiable delays for the institutions and other candidates in the recruitment procedures. Besides, when organising these general competitions, EPSO aimed at making available to the institutions a sufficient number of suitable candidates for each of the three levels of linguistic administrators. In fact, the number of suitable candidates which will be retained on the various reserve lists at the end of the competitions has been calculated and laid down in the notices of competitions on the basis of the various institutions' estimates based on their future recruitment needs. It could indeed be contrary to the interests of the institutions if a considerable number of very experienced and high-performing candidates, who could apply to all competitions, would eventually appear on all three reserve lists. This could put in question the goal of making available to the institutions for recruitment the number of suitable candidates which was identified by the institutions for the three competitions.

In relation to EPSO's argument based on Case T-89/03 R, although the Community Courts have not yet had the chance to address directly the problem of the challenged clause, the Ombudsman notes that, in its appraisal and rejection of an argument in Joined Cases T-167/99 and T-174/99 Giulietti v Commission, the Court of First Instance appeared to accept and relied on the fact that "different competitions were organised simultaneously and the applicants therefore had the opportunity to choose from among all the available competitions, the one in which they wished to take part."(15)

Finally, the Ombudsman also considers that the complainant's argument that EPSO could eventually decide to organise a single competition in order to fulfil the yearly recruitment needs of the institutions, thus effectively preventing the candidates from registering for positions for which they fulfil the formal criteria, cannot be sustained. As explained above (point 1.8), such a competition would not be organised to fill a specific position but to constitute a reserve list of suitable candidates from which institutions would recruit according to their needs. Contrary to what the complainant argues, a successful candidate in such a hypothetical competition could be recruited for any position to which such a competition would give access.

1.10 In light of the above considerations, and in light of the fact that the tests of Open Competitions EPSO/AD/5/05, EPSO/AD/6/05 and EPSO/AD/7/05 competitions were held on the same day, t he Ombudsman concludes that the present inquiry has revealed no indications that EPSO has exceeded the margins of its discretionary powers in allowing candidates to apply for only one of these Open Competitions, which were planned to be held simultaneously. Hence the Ombudsman finds no maladministration and concludes that the complainant's claim that EPSO should allow him and other candidates to participate in all competitions cannot be sustained.

1.11 However, the Ombudsman notes that the notices of competitions in question asked potential candidates to "(...) note that the tests for the above competitions may be held simultaneously. You may therefore apply for one of these competitions only." (Ombudsman's underlining). The Ombudsman considers that the formulation used left opened the possibility for EPSO not to organise the tests simultaneously. However, EPSO was right in announcing its intention to organise the tests simultaneously, as actually occurred.

The Ombudsman considers that EPSO should only use a clause prohibiting candidates from applying for more than one of parallel competitions when, for reasons related to sound and timely management and organisation of competitions, it is certain that the tests will indeed be held simultaneously, thereby making multiple participation impossible. Only under unusual and unexpected circumstances that would make it impossible or extraordinarily difficult for the tests to be carried out simultaneously, should EPSO deviate from its announced intention, which justifies the prohibition on candidates from applying for more than one of parallel competitions. A further remark to this effect will be made below.

2 Conclusion

On the basis of the Ombudsman's inquiries into this complaint, there appears to have been no maladministration by EPSO. The Ombudsman therefore closes the case.

FURTHER REMARK

The Ombudsman considers that EPSO should only use a clause prohibiting candidates from applying for more than one of parallel competitions when, for reasons related to sound and timely management and organisation of competitions, it is certain that the tests will indeed be held simultaneously, thereby making multiple participation impossible. Only under unusual and unexpected circumstances that would make it impossible or extraordinarily difficult for the tests to be carried out simultaneously, should EPSO deviate from its announced intention, which justifies the prohibition on candidates from applying for more than one of parallel competitions.

The Director of EPSO will be informed of this decision.

Yours sincerely,

 

P. Nikiforos DIAMANDOUROS

---

(1) OJ 2005 L 117, p. 3 and p. 16.

(2) The relevant clause of the Notices of Competitions provided: "Please note that the tests for the above competitions may be held simultaneously. You may therefore apply for one of these competitions only. You must choose which one when you register online, and cannot change it after the closing date for inscription."

(3) Czech, Estonian, Hungarian, Latvian, Lithuanian, Maltese, Polish, Slovak and Slovene.

(4) Decision 2002/620/EC of the European Parliament, the Council, the Commission, the Court of Justice, the Court of Auditors, the Economic and Social Committee, the Committee of the Regions and the European Ombudsman of 25 July 2002 establishing a European Communities Personnel Selection Office (OJ 2002 L 197, p. 53).

(5) Case T-89/03, removed from the Court's register on 21 May 2003.

(6) OJ 2005 L 117, p. 3 and p. 16.

(7) Czech, Estonian, Hungarian, Latvian, Lithuanian, Maltese, Polish, Slovak and Slovene.

(8) Article 27 of the Staff Regulations provides that "[r]ecruitment shall be directed to securing for the institution the services of officials of the highest standard of ability, efficiency and integrity (...)."

(9) Decision 2002/620/EC of the European Parliament, the Council, the Commission, the Court of Justice, the Court of Auditors, the Economic and Social Committee, the Committee of the Regions and the European Ombudsman of 25 July 2002 establishing a European Communities Personnel Selection Office (OJ 2002 L 197, p. 53)

(10) Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 723/2004 of 22 March 2004 amending the Staff Regulations of officials of the European Communities and the Conditions of Employment of other servants of the European Communities (OJ 2004 L 124, p. 1).

(11) Case T-207/95 Ibarra Gil v Commission [1997] ECR-SC I-A-13 and II-31; Case T-211/95 Petit-Laurent v Commission [1997] ECR-SC I-A-21 and II-57.

(12) Case T-256/01 Pyres v Commission, judgment of 15 February 2005, not yet reported, paragraph 66.

(13) Case T-256/01 Pyres v Commission, cited above, paragraph 37.

(14) See Case T-1/90 Pérez-Minguez Casariego v Commission [1991] ECR II-143, paragraph 80; recently reiterated in Case T-306/04 Luxem v Commission, judgment of 16 November 2006, not yet reported.

(15) Joined Case T-167/ 99 and T-174/99 Giulietti v Commission [2001] ECR-SC I-A-93 and II-441 , paragraph 75.