Court of Justice 22 September 2022, C-613/21 P (European Parliament v Fernando Carbajo Ferrero.)

Also known as

In this Opinion in Case C‑613/21 P (European Parliament v Carbajo Ferrero), Advocate General Medina opines that the General Court correctly held that comparative assessment criteria established at the outset of a senior official recruitment procedure must not be altered during that procedure, and that interview topics or themes must derive their legitimacy from those criteria rather than replace them, as any substitution risks breaching the principle of equal treatment and the transparency obligation owed to the appointing authority. The AG further opines that the Parliament's argument that the Article 29(2) Staff Regulations procedure permits mid-procedure changes to assessment criteria is unsupported by the cited case-law, and that the General Court did not rule ultra petita in finding a breach of transparency towards the Bureau. On the alternative ground, the AG opines that while the General Court erred in failing to conduct a proportionality assessment before annulling a decision favourable to a third party, that error is ineffective because a proper weighing of all interests would nonetheless support annulment, subject to an obligation on the Parliament to seek an equitable solution for the appointed candidate.AI