(Officials – Refusal to promote – Consideration of comparative merits – Annulling judgment – Implementing measures – Article 233 EC – Application for annulment and for compensation)

Full text in Greek II - 0000

Application: for annulment of the Parliament’s decision of 28 September 2001 not to promote the applicant retroactively to Grade A4 and for compensation in respect of the material and non-material damage which the applicant claims to have suffered.

Held: The application is dismissed. The parties are ordered to bear their own costs.

Summary

(Staff Regulations, Art. 45(1))

(Art. 233 EC)

(Staff Regulations, Art. 45(1))

5. Officials – Promotion – Discretion of the administration – Judicial review – Limits

(Staff Regulations, Art. 45)

6. Officials – Promotion – Complaint by an unsuccessful candidate – Decision rejecting complaint – Statement of reasons

(Staff Regulations, Art. 90(2))

Furthermore, the appointment within the Advisory Committee on Promotions of members and alternates is designed to facilitate the continuity of the Committee’s work and the holding of its meetings even if certain members are unable to attend or unavailable. It cannot be claimed that a meeting was irregular or that the institution infringed the principle of equal representation merely because certain representatives appointed by the Staff Committee, having been duly invited to attend, did not do so.

(see paras 24-25)

(see para. 31)

(see paras 52-54)

(see para. 57)

5. When considering the comparative merits to be taken into account in deciding on promotion pursuant to Article 45 of the Staff Regulations, the appointing authority possesses a wide discretion and may undertake such consideration using the procedure or method it regards as most appropriate. In that regard review by the Community judicature must be confined to the question whether, having regard to the methods and procedures used by the administration to make its assessment, the latter has remained within reasonable bounds and has not manifestly misused its power. The Court cannot therefore substitute its assessment of the qualifications and merits of officials for that of the appointing authority.

(see paras 58-59)

6. Although the appointing authority is not under an obligation to provide unsuccessful candidates with reasons for its decision on promotion, it must, on the other hand, give reasons for its decision to reject a complaint lodged by an unsuccessful candidate pursuant to Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations.

(see para. 68)

(see para. 76)