On 2 September 2026 the General Court (Case T-416/24, ES v Commission) has dismissed an action brought by a candidate who challenged her exclusion from the next stage of Commission internal competition COM/AD/03/22 (AD 5). The case concerned, in particular, technical difficulties allegedly encountered before and during a remote written examination. 

The applicant relied on the principle of good administration, the duties of diligence and care, a manifest error of assessment and the principle of equal treatment. 

The judgment is particularly relevant in the context of the longstanding concerns raised by Generation 2004 regarding internal competitions, equal access to career opportunities and the safeguards that should accompany increasingly digital selection procedures. Generation 2004 has for several years supported colleagues participating in internal competitions, including through training, practical guidance and legal action. Its work has also highlighted the need for reliable technical support and appropriate safeguards when assessments are conducted online. In our article “Internal Competitions: A Fair Shot for Everyone?”, we examined these issues in detail and called, in particular, for adequate IT support during online assessments and effective safeguards when external platforms are used.  

Technical difficulties before the examination 

The applicant had experienced technical difficulties during the preliminary simulation test and had informed the Commission. The IT services were alerted on the afternoon of 22 May 2023. 

The Court found that the Commission had taken steps to address the difficulties, notwithstanding the practical difficulties arising from the fact that the applicant was abroad at the time. 

The Court also attached importance to the applicant’s own conduct. She had not followed the recommendations given by the competition secretariat and the IT services and had denied that there was an Internet connection problem. She had also failed to follow the invitation to attend the Commission’s IT services’ premises. 

According to the Court, doing so could have enabled the technical difficulties either to be resolved, including through the provision of another computer, or at least to be formally established. 

The applicant had moreover failed to substantiate her claim that she had unsuccessfully offered to attend the IT services on 19 May 2023 to have the updated application installed on her computer. 

Difficulties during the written examination 

The Court reached the same conclusion regarding the problems allegedly encountered during the examination itself. 

The applicant had obtained a mark for the examination and had been able to participate using the software provided for that purpose. However, she had not complied with the instructions contained in the notice of competition. 

As a result, the administration had been unable to establish officially and in good time the existence of the alleged problems or to provide appropriate technical assistance during the examination. 

The Court therefore found no breach of the Commission’s duties of diligence and care. 

The judgment illustrates the importance, in remote selection procedures, of both the administration’s response to technical incidents and the candidate’s compliance with the procedures established for reporting them. 

Equal treatment 

The applicant also argued that allowing candidates to use either a professional or a personal computer could result in unequal treatment. 

The Court rejected that argument. The applicant had not explained how that possibility could have created discrimination between candidates. Furthermore, the competition secretariat had offered her the choice of using either her own computer or a Commission computer. 

The fact that the preliminary simulation had been carried out on her professional computer was therefore insufficient to establish a breach of equal treatment. 

What candidates should take from the judgment 

The judgment does not mean that technical problems are irrelevant to the legality of a competition. Rather, it confirms that the circumstances in which a problem is reported and handled are decisive. 

Candidates facing technical difficulties should therefore report them immediately through the channels specified in the notice of competition, follow the instructions of the competition secretariat and IT support, and retain evidence of the incident and of the steps taken to obtain assistance. 

For the administration, the case underlines the importance of having procedures capable of identifying and addressing technical problems promptly, particularly where an examination is conducted remotely and the outcome may have significant consequences for a candidate’s career.