On 1 July 2026, the General Court delivered its judgment in Case T-415/25, KH v European Commission [1], annulling the Commission’s decision to exclude a temporary agent from an internal competition after he was unable to attend the oral examination because of certified sick leave.
G2004 was pleased to provide financial support for this case, which addresses important questions concerning the protection of EU staff members’ rights during recruitment procedures and clarifies how the principles of good administration and the duty of care apply in practice.
The Facts
The applicant applied for the Commission’s internal competition COM/AST4/2023. The selection board initially declared him ineligible, concluding that he had not completed the required 24 months of service.
Following a request for review, the selection board acknowledged its mistake almost seven weeks later. By that time, however, the applicant had already been placed on certified sick leave.
The Commission immediately invited him to attend the oral examination, scheduled only one week later. As his medical condition prevented him from consulting his professional email account, he did not see the invitation in time and therefore did not attend the examination.
As soon as he became aware of the situation, he informed the competition secretariat, explained that he had been on sick leave and requested a new examination date. The Commission nevertheless excluded him from the competition, arguing that he had failed to notify the secretariat “as quickly as possible” as required by the competition notice.
The Court’s Assessment
The General Court annulled the exclusion decision, finding that the Commission had infringed its duty of care.
The Court did not question that candidates are generally required to comply with competition rules. However, it stressed that those rules cannot be applied mechanically without considering the individual circumstances of the case.
Several elements were decisive.
First, the applicant’s situation resulted directly from the administration’s own error. The selection board wrongly declared him ineligible and took almost seven weeks to correct it. The delayed correction meant that the invitation to the oral examination was sent while the applicant remained on certified sick leave.
Second, the Court found that the applicant had acted diligently. Once he became aware that he had been readmitted to the competition and had missed the examination, he informed the competition secretariat within nine days. His medical certificate confirmed that he had been completely unfit for work and unable to monitor his professional email during the relevant period.
Third, the Court observed that the competition notice required candidates to notify the secretariat “as quickly as possible.” That wording necessarily requires an assessment of the factual circumstances of each individual case and cannot be interpreted as imposing an absolute obligation regardless of the candidate’s medical condition.
Finally, the Court noted that the Commission had failed to demonstrate that organising the applicant’s oral examination at a later date would have compromised the integrity of the competition or imposed disproportionate administrative burdens.
Consistency with Established Case-law
The judgment builds upon several well-established principles developed by the Court of Justice and the General Court.
The duty of care requires a balanced assessment
The Court relied on the Court of Justice’s recent judgment in EUIPO v KD (C-5/23P) [2], which reaffirmed that the duty of care reflects the balance between the rights and obligations of the administration and its staff. When taking decisions affecting an official or other staff member, the administration must consider all relevant circumstances, considering not only the interests of the service but also the interests of the individual concerned.
This principle formed the cornerstone of the Court’s reasoning. Rather than simply verifying compliance with the competition notice, the Commission should have examined the applicant’s particular situation, including its own earlier administrative error and his certified incapacity for work.
Enhanced protection where health is affected
The judgment also relies on the General Court’s ruling in Lucaccioni v Commission (T-316/19) [3], which established that the administration’s duty of care is substantially strengthened whenever an official’s physical or mental health is affected.
Applying to that principle, the Court considered that the Commission could not disregard medical evidence demonstrating that the applicant was unable to access his professional emails during his sick leave. Instead, the administration was required to assess his circumstances with particular care.
The duty of care has limits—but not in this case
The Court also recalled earlier case-law confirming that the duty of care cannot override the applicable legal rules. Referring to WT v Commission (T-91/20) [4], it reiterated that protection of staff members must remain compatible with compliance with the governing legal framework.
However, the Court found that this principle did not justify the Commission’s approach. The competition notice itself required notification “as quickly as possible,” a flexible standard allowing consideration of exceptional circumstances rather than imposing an inflexible deadline.
Distinguishing the Prais judgment
The Commission relied heavily on the landmark judgment of Prais v Council (130/75) [5], in which the Court of Justice recognised that changing competition arrangements for one candidate could potentially affect equal treatment among candidates.
The General Court carefully distinguished that precedent.
Unlike in Prais, the Commission failed to explain why organising a later oral examination would have jeopardised the integrity of the competition or undermined equal treatment. Nor did it demonstrate that accommodating the applicant would have created disproportionate organisational difficulties.
The Court therefore concluded that invoking equal treatment in the abstract was insufficient. Any refusal to accommodate exceptional circumstances must be supported by concrete evidence.
Why the Judgment Matters
The decision is significant because it confirms that procedural rules governing EU competitions cannot be applied in isolation from the fundamental principles of EU administrative law.
Where the administration’s own error contributes to a candidate’s difficulties, and where certified illness affects the candidate’s ability to comply with procedural requirements, the institutions must undertake an individual assessment rather than applying formal rules automatically.
The judgment therefore strengthens legal certainty for EU staff while reaffirming that good administration requires flexibility, proportionality, and genuine consideration of individual circumstances.
G2004’s fighting for staff’s rights
G2004 supported this litigation financially, of which we are very proud.
The judgment reinforces important safeguards for all EU staff members participating in internal competitions. It confirms that administrative efficiency must be balanced with fairness and that the duty of care remains a concrete legal obligation rather than a purely aspirational principle.
By supporting strategic litigation of this kind, G2004 contributes to the development of case-law that promotes fair recruitment procedures, respect for staff members’ rights and higher standards of administrative decision-making throughout the European institutions.