(Civil service – Officials – Promotion – 2006 procedure – Multiplier rate – Article 6(2) of the Staff Regulations – Article 9 of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations – Promotion threshold)

Application: brought under Articles 236 EC and 152 EA, in which Mr Rebizant, Mr Vlandas and Mr Vocino seek annulment of the Commission’s decision not to promote them to grade AD 13 under the 2006 promotion procedure.

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

Summary

Actions for annulment – Pleas in law – Invalid plea in law

In an action for annulment, where a plea, in the event that it is well founded, is not such as to lead to the annulment sought by the applicant, that plea must be regarded as invalid. Therefore, where an official who is paid from the appropriations of one of the parties under the general budget brings an action against a decision of the Commission not to promote him, even though he could not have been promoted because he had not accumulated sufficient points for promotion, he must be regarded as not having a legitimate interest in obtaining annulment of a decision which could only be taken again, in an identical form, concerning him.

(see paras 61-62)

See:

C-46/98 P EFMA v Council [2000] ECR I‑7079, paras 37 and 38; C‑76/01 P Eurocoton and Others v Council [2003] ECR I‑10091, para. 52

T-432/04 Parlante v Commission [2007] ECR-SC I‑A‑2‑0000 and II‑A‑2‑0000, para. 38