Reports of Cases

JUDGMENT OF THE CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL (First Chamber) 14 September 2010

(Civil service — Officials — 2001/2002 appraisal — Career development report — Compliance with an annulling judgment — Effects of the withdrawal of an act — Establishment of the objectives)

Application: brought under Articles 236 EC and 152 EA, in which Mr Rossi Ferreras seeks annulment of his career development report ‘for the period from 1 July 2001 to 31 December 2002’.

Held: The applicant’s action is dismissed. The applicant is ordered to pay all the costs.

Summary

3. Officials — Reports procedure — Career development report — System introduced by the Commission — Transition from the old to the new system (Staff Regulations, Art. 43)

EN ECLI:EU:F:2010:100

SUMMARY — CASE F-85/09 ROSSI FERRERAS v COMMISSION

(see para. 49)

See: T-2/95 Industrie des poudres sphériques v Council [1998] ECR II-3939, para. 91

F-50/06 Lebedef-Caponi v Commission [2007] ECR-SC I-A-1-109 and II-A-1-597, para. 37; F-46/07 Tzirani v Commission [2008] ECR-SC I-A-1-323 and II-A-1-1773, para. 53

(see paras 53-54)

See: T-155/03, T-157/03 and T-331/03 Cwik v Commission [2005] ECR-SC I-A-411 and II-1865, paras 159 to 161

3. It follows from Article 4(1) and Article 7(1) of the general provisions for implementing Article 43 of the Staff Regulations, adopted by the Commission, that the appraisal of officials’ efficiency in the 2001/2002 exercise was conducted despite the fact that no objectives had been set in advance. However, the absence of objectives does not preclude the possibility that officials were allocated specific tasks by their immediate superiors.

That being so, there is nothing to prevent the reporting officer from stating in the career development report for the reference period that the official did not achieve his objectives, where appropriate, provided that his tasks were defined in his job description, of which he was aware.

The validity of such a report cannot be called into question by the argument that the tasks allocated to an official are not sufficiently precise to enable him to determine precisely how he is to carry them out. In such a situation, the onus was on him to ask his line managers for the necessary explanations and advice.

(see paras 55-57)

(see para. 72)

See: T-249/04 Combescot v Commission [2007] ECR-SC I-A-2-181 and II-A-2-1219, para. 78

ECLI:EU:F:2010:100

3

SUMMARY — CASE F-85/09 ROSSI FERRERAS v COMMISSION

However, since an official’s performance may vary from one reference period to another, it is necessary that the difference between successive career development reports must be sufficiently clear cut if the reporting officer and countersigning officer are to be under a particular obligation to provide a statement of reasons.

(see paras 79, 81)

See: T-187/01 Mellone v Commission [2002] ECR-SC I-A-81 and II-389, para. 27 and the case-law cited therein; T-50/04 Micha v Commission [2005] ECR-SC I-A-339 and II-1499, para. 36

F-111/05 Sanchez Ferriz v Commission [2007] ECR-SC I-A-1-71 and II-A-1-425, para. 65; F-93/08 N v Parliament [2009] ECR-SC I-A-1-433 and II-A-1-2339, para. 86

ECLI:EU:F:2010:100