(Officials – Promotion – Irregularity in a promotion procedure – Consideration of comparative merits – Statement of reasons – Application for annulment)

Full text in French II - 0000

Application:for annulment of the Commission’s decision not to promote the applicant to Grade B 1 in the promotion round for 2001.

Held:The decision refusing to promote the applicant is annulled. The Commission is ordered to pay the costs.

Summary

(Staff Regulations, Art. 45(1))

(Staff Regulations, Art. 45(1))

(Staff Regulations, Art. 45(1))

(see para. 20)

See: T-3/92 Latham v Commission [1994] ECR-SC I-A-23 and II-83, para. 50; T-262/94 Baiwir v Commission [1996] ECR-SC I-A-257 and II-739, para. 67; T-134/02 Tejada Fernández v Commission [2003] ECR-SC I-A-125 and II-609, para. 40

However, the discretion allowed to the administration is circumscribed by the need to undertake a comparative consideration of candidatures with care and impartiality, in the interests of the service and in accordance with the principle of equal treatment. In practice, consideration of the comparative merits of candidatures must be undertaken on a basis of equality, using comparable sources of information.

Furthermore, it is clear from the wording of the first paragraph of Article 45(1) of the Staff Regulations that, in the context of a promotions procedure, the appointing authority is required to make its choice on the basis of a comparative examination of the staff reports and merits of the candidates eligible for promotion. That examination must be carried out with care and impartiality, in the interests of the service and in accordance with the principle of equal treatment. To that end, it has a power under the Staff Regulations to undertake that examination in accordance with the procedure or method which it considers most appropriate.

(see paras 21-22)

See: T-76/92 Tsirimokos v Parliament [1993] ECR II-1281, paras 20 and 21; Baiwir v Commission, para. 66; T-221/96 Manzo-Tafaro v Commission [1998] ECR-SC I-A-115 and II-307, para. 16; T-157/98 Oliveira v Parliament [1999] ECR-SC I-A-163 and II-851, para. 35; Tejada Fernández v Commission, para. 41

The situation is different where the staff report, although the subject of a subsequent appeal, was to be regarded as final under the general rules for the implementation of Article 43 of the Staff Regulations in the institution concerned.

(see paras 30-31)

See: 156/79 and 51/80 Gratreau v Commission [1980] ECR 3943, para. 22; T-144/95 Michaël v Commission [1996] ECR-SC I-A-529 and II-1429, para. 52; T-82/98 Jacobs v Commission [2000] ECR-SC I-A-39 and II-169, paras 34 and 39