Civil & Administrative

#62025TO0790EU Court annuls CdT recruitment rejection for lack of reasons

🇪🇺European Union··Other·Low Impact·View source ↗

AI-generated summary for informational purposes only. Not legal advice. See the original source for the authoritative text.

🇬🇧 English

This order cancels the Translation Centre’s decision not to move a candidate to the next stage of a recruitment process. The Court found that the Centre did not clearly explain why the application was rejected or whether the candidate failed the eligibility check or the scored pre-selection stage. For EU bodies running hiring processes, the practical message is simple: rejected candidates must receive enough information to understand the decision, including scores where scoring is used. Selection secrecy does not allow an agency to withhold basic results needed to explain a rejection.

AI-generated summary. May contain errors. Refer to official sources for legal decisions.

Key Changes

  • Annuls the CdT selection committee’s decision rejecting the candidate before the selection stage
  • Confirms that an administrative complaint was not required because the hiring authority could not change the selection committee’s decision
  • Requires recruitment decisions to explain where and why a candidate was rejected, including disclosure of scores when scoring is used

Obligations

What this law requires

medium

EU bodies conducting recruitment procedures must give rejected candidates enough reasons to understand why they were not advanced and to allow judicial review of the decision.

EU institutions and bodies conducting recruitment procedures
disclosure
medium

Where a recruitment vacancy notice uses separate eligibility and scored pre-selection stages, the rejection decision must indicate at which stage the candidate was rejected.

EU institutions and bodies conducting recruitment procedures
disclosure
medium

Where eligible candidates are scored during pre-selection, the candidate must be informed of the score obtained when the application is rejected; selection-board secrecy does not justify withholding that score.

EU institutions and bodies using scored recruitment assessments
At the same time as the rejection decision
disclosure
medium

A recruitment authority cannot remedy a complete failure to state reasons by supplying the missing reasoning for the first time before the EU Courts.

EU institutions and bodies defending recruitment decisions
operational
high

The General Court annulled the Translation Centre’s 8 August 2025 decision not to invite NX to the selection stage because the decision failed to state reasons.

Translation Centre for the Bodies of the European Union
operational

Affected Parties

EU agencies and bodies running staff recruitmentCandidates in EU civil service selection procedures+1 more…

Tags

EU civil service,recruitment,duty to give reasons