Reports of Cases

Case T-51/08 P

(Appeals — Civil service — Officials — Promotion — 2005 promotion procedure — Priority points — Points not allocated owing to a technical problem — A* Promotion Committee — Allocation of a lower number of points than had been proposed by the applicant’s superior — Failure to include the applicant in the list of officials eligible for promotion)

Application: Appeal brought against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (Second Chamber) of 22 November 2007 in Case F-109/06 Dittert v Commission ECR-SC I-A-1-383 and II-A-1-2131, seeking to have that judgment set aside.

Held: The appeal is dismissed. The Commission is to bear its own costs and pay the costs incurred by Mr Daniel Dittert.

Summary

4. Officials — Promotion — Consideration of comparative merits (Staff Regulations, Art. 45)

EN ECLI:EU:T:2011:702

SUMMARY – CASE T-51/08 P COMMISSION v DITTERT

(see paras 59, 60)

(see paras 62, 66, 67)

In this respect, under that system, every official, whether seconded or not, has the right to two consecutive examinations of his merits, each of which may in itself increase his chances of promotion: a comparative examination within his directorate-general, carried out by the Director General, which may result in the award of priority points, and then a comparative examination extended to all the directorates-general, carried out by the Promotion Committee and the appointing authority, which may result in the award of additional priority points. The primary function of that examination extended to all the directorates-general is not therefore to replace the examination carried out by the various directorates-general but to supplement it by the award, if appropriate, of additional priority points.

Furthermore, in a promotion system based on the quantification of merits, characterised by the annual award to officials of merit points and additional priority points, the possibility the appointing authority has of making a corrective intervention may only remedy a breach of procedure committed, for example, in respect of an official, in the consideration of his comparative merits at the level of his directorate-general, where it guarantees for the official concerned treatment which is as favourable as that which would have been applied to him in the absence of that breach. That principle is not complied with in the case where the appointing authority does not consider itself in any way bound by the formal assurances given by the Director General concerned, as regards what his intentions would have been with respect to that official in the absence of the breach of procedure committed, even though the sole purpose of the Director General’s action was to correct a breach of procedure such as to compromise the validity of a decision fixing the total number of points, in accordance with the principle of sound administration and the duty of the administration to have regard for the welfare of officials.

(see paras 70-73,75)

See: T-432/04 Parlante v Commission [2007] ECR-SC I-A-2-133 and II-A-2-921, paras 59, 64 and 68

ECLI:EU:T:2011:702

SUMMARY – CASE T-51/08 P COMMISSION v DITTERT

4. The rules for promotion implemented by the Commission provide for the participation of the Directors General in the promotion procedure by means of the award of the priority points for their directorate-general. It is therefore proper for a Director General who has been prevented, following a technical problem beyond his control, from making a decision on the file of one of his subordinates, to forward to the competent Promotion Committee and the appointing authority the relevant information relating to the consideration of the comparative merits of the official concerned within his directorate-general. Far from putting that official in a more favourable position than that of other officials in the same directorate-general, such conduct is on the contrary in accordance not only with the principle of sound administration and the duty to have regard for the welfare of officials, but also with the principle of equal treatment.

(see para. 81)

(see para. 93)

See: Parlante v Commission, para. 59

ECLI:EU:T:2011:702