Strasbourg, 27 April 2006

Dear Mr A.,

On 14 April 2005, you made a complaint to the European Ombudsman against the European Personnel Selection Office ("EPSO") concerning Open Competition EPSO/B/22/04 to constitute a reserve pool of administrative assistants (B5/B4) in the field of information technology(1).

On 26 May 2005, I forwarded the complaint to the Director of EPSO. EPSO sent its opinion on 31 August 2005. On 14 September 2005, I forwarded it to you with an invitation to make observations, which you sent on 12 October 2005.

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

THE COMPLAINT

The complainant participated in the preselection test in Open Competition EPSO/B/22/04 organised in order to constitute a reserve pool of administrative assistants B5/B4 in the field of information technology. After examining the complainant's application, the Selection Board noticed that it was not supported by enough documents to enable it to decide whether to admit the complainant to participate in the competition and invoked points C.3 and A.I of the Notice of Competition. The Board provided the complainant with the possibility to complete his application with additional external supporting documents. The complainant requested that the Board provide him with a list of the missing supporting documents. Without obtaining the requested assistance from the Board, the complainant decided to add to his external supporting documents links to the official websites of the French Ministry of Education containing information on the authorisation of the complainant's Engineering School to award degrees in engineering, to the official website of the École Supérieure d'Électronique de l'Ouest regarding the study programme of the degree in engineering and to the official website of Syntec Informatique which is the French association of the software and computing services companies regarding the interpretation of the classification codes on his salary slips in the light of the classification agreed upon in the collective labour agreement of engineers and administrators (ingénieurs et cadres). After reviewing the additional external supporting documents, the Board decided not to admit the complainant to the competition on the grounds that his application was incomplete and the documents he sent about his qualifications and professional experience did not correspond to the relevant conditions set out in the Notice of Competition.

In his complaint to the Ombudsman, the complainant, first, alleged that he had provided the Selection Board with the supporting documents required in the Notice of Competition. The complainant stressed that his application included a degree in engineering in the field of information technology (Bac +5) and his salary slips for over five years as an "ingénieur d'études" in GIE informatics in a company supplying information technology services.

Second, the complainant alleged that, by requiring him to submit additional external supporting documents without providing an exhaustive list of the documents required, the Selection Board had failed to respect Notice of Competition EPSO/B/22/04.

The complainant claimed that he should be allowed to participate in Open Competition EPSO/B/22/04.

THE INQUIRY

EPSO's opinion

The complainant applied for Open Competition EPSO/B/22/04 organised in order to establish a reserve pool from which to recruit administrative assistants in the field of information technology. The Notice of Competition provided that the candidates had to enclose a list of the supporting documents proving the completion of studies and providing evidence of professional experience clearly indicating the starting and finishing dates and the precise nature of the duties carried out.

After a preliminary check of the candidates' eligibility on the basis of the information provided in the application form, the complainant was invited to participate in the preselection tests, which were held on 29 October 2004.

As the complainant was among those candidates who had obtained one of the 1000 highest marks in the preselection tests, as well as the minimum required for each of these tests, he was, in accordance with B 1 of the Notice of Competition, invited to submit his full application in view of his possible admission to the competition.

After examining the complainant's file, the Selection Board noticed that some of the information in it was not sufficiently clear to enable the Board to decide whether to admit him to the competition. Among the supporting documents sent by the complainant with his application were his degree in engineering, awarded by the École Supérieur d'Électronique de l'Ouest, as well as an employment certificate and two salary slips proving that he had been employed as "ingénieur d'études". These documents did not provide any details for the Board to conclude that these studies and professional experience were indeed related to the nature of functions required in the present competition, namely, in the field of informatics. Consequently, by letter of 21 January 2005 the Board requested that the complainant provide the following complementary elements:

"External supporting document proving that the complementary education of at least two years relates sufficiently to informatics (for example: description of the subjects allowing the appreciation of the pertinence of the diploma, etc.).

N.B.: a CV or any other document prepared by the candidate is not a valid supporting document.

External supporting document proving that the professional experience is related to the nature of functions as stipulated in point A.I. of the Notice of Competition.

N.B.: a CV or any other document prepared by the candidate is not a valid supporting document."(2)

The candidate was given ten days to send the requested elements by fax.

On 24 January 2005, the complainant communicated to the Selection Board addresses of websites to be consulted with regard to the study programme of the degree in engineering and the meaning of the codes on his salary slips.

After having examined the complainant's file, the Selection Board informed the complainant by letter of 8 February 2005 that it was not able to retain his application on the grounds that:

• contrary to the provisions of the Notice of Competition the supporting documents relating to the complainant's diplomas as required in point C.3 of the Notice of Competition were missing or incomplete;
• the complainant's titles of diplomas did not fulfil the conditions required in point A.II.1 of the Notice of Competition;
• the supporting documents relating to the complainant's professional experience as required in point C.3 of the Notice of Competition were missing or incomplete.

Therefore the Selection Board did not correct his written test and informed him about the results of his preselection tests. On 9 February 2005, the complainant sent an e-mail addressed to EPSO requesting further details regarding the reasons for not admitting him to the competition. The complainant also requested an acknowledgment of receipt of his fax with the annexes.

On 11 February 2005, EPSO acknowledged receipt of the complainant's fax and informed him that the decision of the Selection Board had been taken in accordance with the terms set out in the Notice of Competition. As regards the reasoning of the Board, EPSO informed the complainant that he had to address his request directly to the attention of the Board, which the complainant did on the same day.

By letter of 28 February 2005, EPSO, on behalf of the Selection Board, informed the complainant that his application and annexed documents did not enable the Board to verify, on the one hand, that the informatics part of his degree in engineering fulfilled the requirements of point A.II.1 of the Notice of Competition(3) and, on the other hand, whether his professional experience was sufficient in the field of informatics(4). Furthermore, EPSO underlined that, although the Board had provided the complainant with an opportunity to complete his file, the documents presented by the complainant were not sufficiently precise to determine whether he met the conditions of admissibility to the competition. EPSO noted that, as regards certain admissibility conditions, instead of providing the requested information, the complainant had invited the Board to consult websites, although the Board bases its decision solely on supporting documents provided by the candidates themselves.

On 1 April 2005, the complainant sent another e-mail to EPSO requesting a list of the supporting documents in his application file. Moreover, the complainant requested details about the nature of the required supporting documents and the evaluation of his engineering degree.

On 7 April 2005, EPSO replied, on behalf of the Selection Board, informing the complainant that it is not up to the Board to inform the candidates about the contents of their individual files, but that it was for the candidates to prove to the Board that their file contained all the necessary supporting documents. The Board explained that it was aware of the different educational structures in the Member States, but that the complainant in the present case had referred the Board to certain websites. The Board did not consider it appropriate to follow the complainant's suggestion for the reasons established in its letter of 28 February 2005.

As to the professional experience, the Selection Board underlined that the certificate of employment provided in the complainant's fax of 24 January 2005 was already included in the complainant's original application and that the three new salary slips annexed indicated simply "ingénieur d'études". The complainant's suggestion to consult websites was rejected for the same reasons as above.

Contrary to what the complainant asserted, the Selection Board, through the intermediary of EPSO, had informed the complainant of what type of information was missing from the complainant's file and was preventing the Board from examining his application. In identifying the elements to be completed, the Board explained to the complainant that the requested information had to provide details, on the one hand, of the content of his complementary education and, on the other hand, of the nature of his functions as "ingénieur d'études".

Regarding the principle of requesting complementary information from the candidates, EPSO underlined that the second paragraph of Article 2 of Annex III of the Staff Regulations offers the Selection Board the possibility to request complementary information from the candidates if there is a doubt about a document that has been provided. This provision cannot, however, be interpreted as imposing an obligation on the Board to provide candidates with an exhaustive list of documents required as supporting documents. In requesting the candidate to provide complementary information, the Board showed proof of its solicitude and its interest in the complainant.

According to established case-law, in order to verify whether the conditions of admissibility established in the Notice of Competition were met, the Selection Board can only take into account indications provided by the candidates in their application form and the supporting documents. In fact, the Board itself is not required to conduct investigations to verify whether the candidates satisfy the conditions set in the Notice of Competition(5).

The case-law recognises also that it is up to the candidates to provide the Selection Board with sufficient clarifications allowing the verification of the level of equivalence between the courses followed and the functions in question with regard to the qualifications obtained by the candidates.

In conclusion, EPSO considered that the Selection Board had respected the terms of the Notice of Competition in deciding not to admit the complainant to Open Competition EPSO/B/22/04.

The complainant's observations

In his observations the complainant maintained his complaint and made the following remarks:

The complainant underlined that he had requested that the Selection Board provide him with a list of external supporting documents that were missing from his application, however, the Board had refused to do so. Without further details, he decided to provide a "grille de lecture" in order to allow the Board to assess the nature of his studies and his professional experience. Aware of the workload of the Board and the diverse origins of the candidates, the complainant sought to assist the Board by providing references to official internet sites of the relevant institutions. The complainant was astonished that the electronic nature of this information became an obstacle, particularly, as the follow-up of the EPSO files is carried out by electronic means. The complainant underlined that he did not request the Board to carry out investigations, but simply to read the official web pages for which he had provided the precise addresses.

THE DECISION

1 Allegation that the complainant submitted the supporting documents required in the Notice of Competition EPSO/B/22/04

1.1 The complainant participated in the preselection test of Open Competition EPSO/B/22/04, organised in order to constitute a reserve pool of administrative assistants B5/B4 in the field of information technology. As the complainant was among those candidates who had obtained one of the 1000 highest marks for the preselection tests, as well as the minimum required for each of these tests, he was invited, in accordance with point B.1 of the Notice of Competition, to submit his full application in view of his possible admission to the competition. Point A.II of the Notice of Competition provides the following, as regards the required certificates, diplomas and professional experience of the candidates:

"1. Certificates and diplomas

You must have completed a course of advanced secondary education and obtained a certificate, and undergone further training in information technology for at least two years (and obtained a certificate recognised by a competent national authority).

The Selection Board will allow for differences between educational systems. A table showing examples of the qualifications required for this competition is annexed to the Guide for Applicants (see EPSO website (3)).

2. Professional experience

Since obtaining the diploma on completion of the course of advanced secondary education, you must have acquired at least two years full-time professional experience related to the duties concerned ."

The Selection Board proceeded to examine the complainant's full application, in accordance with point C.3 entitled 'Full application' of the Notice of Competition which reads as follows:

"Documents to enclose with the application form

Your application must give full details of your citizenship, studies, training, professional experience and any research the candidate has undertaken. You should also enclose a list of the supporting documents, which should be numbered (copy of a document providing your citizenship, copy of diploma(s), these copies do not have to be authenticated, and of evidence of professional experience clearly indicating the starting and finishing dates and the precise nature of the duties carried out).

Signing and sending the form

It is your responsibility to make sure that your application form, duly completed, signed and accompanied by all the supporting documents, is sent by the closing date by registered post."(6)

The complainant's application included evidence of a degree in engineering in the field of information technology (Bac +5) and his salary slips for over five years as an "ingénieur d'études" in GIE informatics in a company supplying information technology services. The Selection Board considered that these documents did not enable it to decide whether to admit the complainant to participate in the competition. The Board provided the complainant with the possibility to complete his application by providing the following additional external supporting documents:

"External supporting document proving that the complementary education of at least two years relates sufficiently to informatics (for example: description of the subjects allowing the appreciation of the pertinence of the diploma, etc.).

N.B.: a CV or any other document prepared by the candidate is not a valid supporting document.

External supporting document proving that the professional experience is related to the nature of functions as stipulated in point A.I. of the Notice of Competition.

N.B.: a CV or any other document prepared by the candidate is not a valid supporting document."

The nature of the functions was described as follows in Point A.I of the Notice of Competition:

"The positions for which the competition is being held involve work in one or more of the following areas:

- application development

- administration of user environment

- web development and administration

- management and supervision of networks, and telecommunications.

Apart from the technical aspects related to the various areas, the duties may include:

- organising and/or following-up projects in any of these areas (partly using outside contractors),

- the organisation and/or the follow-up of operational services in any of these areas (with or without outsourcing part of the work).

All duties involve frequent contact with departments across the board in the European Institutions and with external contractors and entail various tasks related to reporting and presenting work results/plans to technical and non-technical audiences. All duties involve working in teams in an international environment.

(a) General knowledge required

- Operating systems: system administration and configuration (the operating system currently used by the European Institutions are Windows NT/XP/2000 (2) and Unix)

- Database systems (the European Institutions' main database management system is Oracle)

- Office automation tools (basic tools used are MS Office and Exchange/Outlook)

- Networks and telecommunications, with an emphasis on Internet technologies

- Network and computer security (virus protection, user authentication, access rights, protection against network intrusion)

- Application development (data modelling, object-oriented development methodology, web based application interfaces, programming, etc.)

- Project and service management

((2) These are the products used by the European Institutions today (the Court of Auditors uses 'Lotus Notes & Novell'). However, the tests will be oriented more towards the ability to work in a rapidly changing IT environment than towards detailed knowledge of any of these products.)

(b) Detailed knowledge required

The detailed knowledge should cover one of the following areas:

1. Information system development (including database systems)

- Business process analysis

- Object-oriented development methodology (including associated tools), application architectures (one-tier, multi-tier)

- Database installation, performance and design, database implementation using multi-user relational database management systems (such as Oracle, Informix, SQL server)

- Two programming languages with their associated development environments, including at least one of the following: JAVA, Visual Basic, Visual C#, Powerbuilder, Asp. NET, C++, ColdFusion, Oracle application design/development tools

- Creation, organisation and administration of websites and HTML, XML, and UML pages

- Development and maintenance of technical and user documentation

- Quality assurance: application testing

- Application deployment (client and server set-up).

2. Web development and administration

- All current web developments and cutting-edge web technologies

- Creation, organisation and administration of websites and HTML, XML and UML pages

- Two web programming languages with their associated development environments, including at least one of the following: JAVA, Asp. NET, PHB and ColdFusion

- Web application development and deployment techniques

- Administration of web servers (such as: Planet Web Server, Microsoft Internet Information Server, ColdFusion Server, BEA weblogic applications, Apache Server Enterprise, etc.).

3. Administration of user environment

- Configuration, administration, support and keeping up to date of end-user workstations and associated application servers (the European Institutions use Windows NT/XP/2000 workstations and servers)

- Configuration, administration and support of office automation tools, End-user support for such tools (the European Institutions use MS Office, including Exchange/Outlook or Teamware)

- Configuration, administration and support of printers and other shared resources in a network environment

- Network interaction (dynamic IP address assignment, determination of access and/or performance problems)

- User administration, including aspects related to security and confidentiality

- Service management - user support, helpdesk, quality assurance, Service Level Agreements.

4. Management of networks and telecommunications
(a) Data systems

- Good knowledge of LAN/WAN protocols and services (DHCP, DNS, HTTP, SNMP, Active Directory, etc.)

- Use of Internet technologies for implementing internal networks or interconnecting networks

- Network equipment such as routers, hubs, firewalls, proxy-servers, remote access servers, authentication, etc.

- Network design, including cabling

- Network security, including user authentication, access right management and network intrusion detection

- Wireless communications

- Integration of voice and data

- Ongoing developments in the areas of VPN (Virtual Private Network) technologies.

(b) Voice systems

- Telephony/fax systems - configuration and operation of PABX systems

- integration of voice and data

- Mobile, satellite and wireless communications

- Billing and accounting systems."

The complainant requested that the Selection Board provide him with a list of the missing supporting documents. In the absence of the requested assistance from the Board, the complainant communicated to it, on 24 January 2005, addresses of websites to be consulted with regard to the study programme of the degree in engineering and the meaning of the codes on his salary slips. More specifically, he provided links to (i) the official websites of the French Ministry of Education containing information on the authorisation of the complainant's Engineering School to award degrees in engineering; (ii) the official website of the École Supérieure d'Électronique de l'Ouest regarding the study programme of the degree in engineering; and (iii) the official website of Syntec Informatique regarding the interpretation of the classification codes on his salary slips in the light of the classification agreed upon in the collective labour agreement of engineers and administrators (ingénieurs et cadres). The complainant also faxed to the Board a certificate of employment and additional salary slips.

After reviewing the additional external supporting documents, the Selection Board informed the complainant that it was not able to retain his application on the grounds that:

• contrary to the provisions of the Notice of Competition the supporting documents relating to the complainant's diplomas as required in point C.3 of the Notice of Competition were missing or incomplete;
• the complainant's titles of diplomas did not fulfil the conditions required in point A.II.1 of the Notice of Competition;
• the supporting documents relating to the complainant's professional experience as required in point C.3 of the Notice of Competition were missing or incomplete.

The complainant alleged that he had submitted the supporting documents required in the Notice of Competition EPSO/B/22/04.

1.2 In its opinion, EPSO stated that the documents annexed to the complainant's application, or faxed by the complainant on 24 January 2005, did not enable the Selection Board to verify, on the one hand, that the informatics part of the complainant's degree in engineering fulfilled the requirements of point A.II.1 of the Notice of Competition, and, on the other hand, whether his professional experience was sufficient in the field of informatics in accordance with Point A.II.2 of the Notice of Competition. Furthermore, EPSO pointed out that the Board had to base its decision solely on supporting documents provided by the candidates themselves and the Board itself was not required to conduct investigations to verify whether the candidates satisfied the conditions set in the Notice of Competition.(7)

1.3 The Ombudsman first notes that t he complainant submitted to the Selection Board, in support of his application, evidence of his degree in engineering in the field of information technology (Bac +5), an employment certificate and his salary slips as an "ingénieur d'études". In view of the content of the above-mentioned documents, the Ombudsman finds that the Board could reasonably conclude that the information contained in these documents did not enable it to confirm that the complainant met the conditions provided for in point A.II of the Notice of Competition.

1.4 As to the Selection Board's failure to consult the websites suggested by the complainant in relation to his studies and professional experience, the Ombudsman notes that point C.3 of the Notice of Competition, entitled "Documents to enclose with the application form", required that candidates give full details of their studies and professional experience, including a copy of diploma(s) and of evidence of professional experience clearly indicating the starting and finishing dates and the precise nature of the duties carried out. Point C.3 of the Notice also stressed in bold that it was the candidate's responsibility to make sure that his/her application form was accompanied by all the "supporting documents".

The Ombudsman, thus, observes that the Notice of Competition clearly and unconditionally required candidates to prove that they met the requirements specified in point A.II of the Notice by submitting pertinent supporting "documents [...] with the application form". Hence, assuming that a webpage might be considered as constituting a "document", within the meaning of Point C.3 of the Notice, the candidates who wished to prove that they met the aforesaid requirements on the basis of such "documents" had to submit to the Selection Board a paper copy of them. Since the complainant failed to do so, the Board did not infringe the Notice of Competition by refusing to consult the websites suggested by the complainant in relation to his studies and professional experience. In this context, the Ombudsman takes the view that mere references to addresses of websites or webpages on the Internet do not constitute "supporting documents", within the meaning of point C.3 of the Notice of Competition.

1.5 In the light of his findings in points 1.3 and 1.4 of the present decision, the Ombudsman does not accept the complainant's allegation that the Selection Board wrongly failed to consider that he had submitted the supporting documents required by the Notice of the Competition. The Ombudsman, thus, finds no maladministration regarding this aspect of the case.

2 By requiring the complainant to submit additional external supporting documents without providing an exhaustive list of the documents required, the Selection Board allegedly failed to respect Notice of Competition EPSO/B/22/04

2.1 The complainant alleged that an exhaustive list of the required supporting documents was not specified in any document provided to him. Therefore, by requiring him to submit additional external supporting documents without providing an exhaustive list of the documents required, the Selection Board had failed to respect Notice of Competition EPSO/B/22/04.

2.2 In its opinion, EPSO argued that, contrary to what the complainant asserted, the Selection Board, through the intermediary of EPSO, had informed the complainant of what type of information was missing from the complainant's file and was preventing it from determining whether he met the conditions set out in point A.II of the Notice of Competition. In identifying the elements to be completed, the Board explained to the complainant that the requested information had to provide details, on the one hand, of the content of his complementary education and, on the other hand, of the nature of his functions as "ingénieur d'études".

2.3 With regard to the principle of requesting complementary information from the candidates, EPSO emphasised that the second paragraph of Article 2 of Annex III of the Staff Regulations affords the Selection Board the possibility to make such requests if there is a doubt about a document that has been provided. EPSO argued that this provision cannot, however, be interpreted as imposing an obligation on the Board to provide candidates with an exhaustive list of documents required as supporting documents. In requesting the complainant to provide complementary information, the Board showed proof of solicitude and its interest in him.

2.4 The Ombudsman observes that Notice of Competition EPSO/B/22/04 does not contain any explicit provision regarding requests on the part of the Selection Board for additional documents or information. According to the second paragraph of Article 2 of Annex III of the Staff Regulations, candidates "may be required to furnish additional documents or information". The Ombudsman notes that, as the Court of First Instance has held, this provision merely enables the Board to request additional information from candidates if it is in doubt as to the exact significance of a document submitted and can in no way be interpreted as imposing an obligation on the Board(8). Moreover, the Board itself cannot be required to conduct investigations in order to verify whether candidates satisfy all the conditions laid down in the Notice of Competition(9).

2.5 Furthermore, the Ombudsman observes that, in the present case, the Selection Board formulated as follows its request for complementary information:

"External supporting document proving that the complementary education of at least two years relates sufficiently to informatics (for example: description of the subjects allowing the appreciation of the pertinence of the diploma, etc.).

N.B.: a CV or any other document prepared by the candidate is not a valid supporting document.

External supporting document proving that the professional experience is related to the nature of functions as stipulated in point A.I. of the Notice of Competition.

N.B.: a CV or any other document prepared by the candidate is not a valid supporting document."

The requirement for a complementary education of at least two years was provided for in point A.II.1 of the Notice (see point 1.1 of the present decision). The nature of the functions was described in Point A.I of the Notice of Competition (see point 1.1 of the present decision).

2.6 The Ombudsman considers that the Selection Board's request referred, in an adequate way, to the nature of proof to be contained in the additional documents it requested. In addition, taking into the account the points made in point 2.4 of the present decision, the Ombudsman finds that the Board was under no obligation to specify, in view of the information and documentation already provided by the complainant, the exact type or content of the requested documents. Hence, the Ombudsman concludes that the Board's failure to provide the complainant with an "exhaustive list" of the additional documents it requested did not amount to an instance of maladministration. Therefore, the Ombudsman finds no maladministration as regards this aspect of the complaint.

3 Claim that the complainant should be allowed to participate in Open Competition EPSO/B/22/04

3.1 The complainant claims that he should be allowed to participate in Open Competition EPSO/B/22/04.

3.2 In the light of the findings made in points 1.5 and 2.6 above, the Ombudsman cannot accept this claim.

4 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 suggests that, as a matter of good administrative practice, EPSO could consider clarifying in future notices of competitions, containing a provision such as point C.3 of the Notice of Competition here concerned, whether paper copies of webpages and/or simple references to websites or webpages might constitute "documents" in the sense of such a provision.

The Director of EPSO will also be informed of this decision.

Yours sincerely,

 

P. Nikiforos DIAMANDOUROS

---

(1) OJ C 66 A, 16.3.2004.

(2) Translation into English by the Ombudsman's staff.

"Un justificatif externe prouvant que la formation complémentaire d'une durée minimale de deux ans

est suffisamment en relation avec l'informatique (ex.: un descriptif des matières permettant d'apprécier la pertinence du diplôme, etc.).

N.B.: un C.V. ou tout autre document établi par le candidat n'est pas un justificatif valable.

Un justificatif externe prouvant que l'expérience professionnelle est liée à la nature des fonctions stipulées au point A.I. de l'avis de concours.

N.B.: un C.V. ou tout autre document établi par le candidat n'est pas un justificatif valable."

(3) Point A.II.1 provides the following:

"Certificates and diplomas

You must have completed a course of advanced secondary education and obtained a certificate, and undergone further training in information technology for at least two years (and obtained a certificate recognised by a competent national authority).

The Selection Board will allow for differences between educational systems. A table showing examples of the qualifications required for this competition is annexed to the Guide for Applicants (see EPSO website (3)).

(3) http://europa.eu/epso"

(4) Point A.II.2 provides the following:

"Professional experience

Since obtaining the diploma on completion of the course of advanced secondary education, you must have acquired at least two years full-time professional experience related to the duties concerned."

(5) See Case T-145/02 Armin Petrich v Commission, judgment of 25 March 2004 (not yet published), paragraph 76.

(6) Emphasis in the original.

(7) See Case T-145/02 Armin Petrich v Commission, judgment of 25 March 2004 (not yet published), paragraph 76.

(8) See, e.g., Case T-145/02 Armin Petrich v Commission, judgment of 25 March 2004 (not yet published), paragraph 76.

(9) See, e.g., Case T-145/02 Armin Petrich v Commission, cited above, paragraph 78.