EUR-Lex & EU Commission AI-Powered Semantic Search Engine
Modern Legal
  • Query in any language with multilingual search
  • Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
  • See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Start free trial

Similar Documents

Explore similar documents to your case.

We Found Similar Cases for You

Sign up for free to view them and see the most relevant paragraphs highlighted.

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 17 February 2009. # Amerigo Liotti v Commission of the European Communities. # Public service - Official. # Case F-38/08.

ECLI:EU:F:2009:13

62008FJ0038

February 17, 2009
With Google you find a lot.
With us you find everything. Try it now!

I imagine what I want to write in my case, I write it in the search engine and I get exactly what I wanted. Thank you!

Valentina R., lawyer

(Civil service – Officials – Appraisal – Career development report – 2006 appraisal procedure – Appraisal rules applied by the reporting officers)

Application: brought under Articles 236 EC and 152 EA, in which Mr Liotti seeks annulment of his career development report for the period from 1 January to 31 December 2006.

Held: The applicant’s career development report for the period from 1 January to 31 December 2006 is annulled. The Commission is ordered to pay the costs.

Summary

Officials – Reports procedure – Career development report – General implementing provisions establishing common appraisal rules for each directorate-general

(Staff Regulations, Art. 43)

The infringement, in drawing up an official’s career development report, of the general implementing provisions for Article 43 of the Staff Regulations adopted by the institution concerned, according to which common appraisal rules for each directorate-general must be taken into account in order to make it easier to compare the merits of officials, to harmonise the merit marks suggested by the reporting officers and to ensure consistent appraisal within a directorate-general, constitutes an infringement of a substantive procedural requirement. Failure to apply those rules or to take them sufficiently into account thus renders the official’s appraisal substantively flawed and justifies its annulment.

(see paras 46-47)

EurLex Case Law

AI-Powered Case Law Search

Query in any language with multilingual search
Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly

Get Instant Answers to Your Legal Questions

Cancel your subscription anytime, no questions asked.Start 14-Day Free Trial

At Modern Legal, we’re building the world’s best search engine for legal professionals. Access EU and global case law with AI-powered precision, saving you time and delivering relevant insights instantly.

Contact Us

Tivolska cesta 48, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia