(Civil service – Officials – Promotion – Priority points – General implementing provisions for Article 45 of the Staff Regulations)

Application: brought under Articles 236 EC and 152 EA, in which Mr Schell seeks, primarily, annulment of the lists of officials promoted to grade B*8 in the 2004 and 2005 promotion years, in so far as those lists do not contain his name, together with the measures paving the way for those decisions, and, in the alternative, annulment of the decisions fixing the total number of promotion points in the 2004 and 2005 promotion years.

Held: The action is dismissed. Each party is to bear its own costs.

Summary

Officials – Actions – Prior administrative complaint – Promotion system established by the Commission – Complaint against the list of officials promoted and against the determination of the points allocated to officials – Decision to reject – Statement of reasons

(Staff Regulations, Arts 25, second para., 45 and 90(2))

Under the promotion system established by an internal regulation of the Commission, in which the promotion exercise culminates in an act comprising two separate decisions by the appointing authority, the one adopting the list of promoted officials and the other fixing the total number of points of officials, neither of those two decisions is supposed to include a statement of reasons. The obligation to state reasons is satisfied where the appointing authority states reasons for its decision rejecting a complaint against those decisions lodged under Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations.

In that respect, since promotion is by selection, the appointing authority is not required to disclose to the unsuccessful candidate details of its comparison of his merits and those of the candidate who is promoted. Consequently, it is enough to satisfy the obligation to state reasons that the reply to the complaint mentions how the conditions governing promotion laid down by law and the Staff Regulations have been applied in the official’s individual situation.

(see paras 89, 91)

See: C-343/87 Culin v Commission [1990] ECR I‑225, para. 13

T-11/91 Schloh v Council [1992] ECR II‑203, paras 73, 85 and 86; T-6/96 Contargyris v Council [1997] ECR-SC I‑A‑119 and II‑357, paras 147 and 148; T-230/99 McAuley v Council [2001] ECR-SC I‑A‑127 and II‑583, paras 50 to 52; T-218/02 Napoli Buzzanca v Commission [2005] ECR-SC I‑A‑267 and II‑1221, para. 59; T‑311/04 Buendía Sierra v Commission [2006] ECR II‑4137, para. 147