- Query in any language with multilingual search
- Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
- See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Similar Documents
Explore similar documents to your case.We Found Similar Cases for You
Order of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) of 26 April 2007. # Vittoria Tebaldi and Others v Commission of the European Communities. # Public service - Officials - Promotion - Manifest inadmissibility. # Case T-415/04.
ECLI:EU:T:2007:116
62004TO0415
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 – Promotion – 2003 promotion procedure – Refusal of promotion – Award of promotion points – Manifestly inadmissible)
Application: for annulment, principally, of the list of officials promoted to a higher grade in the 2003 promotion procedure, in so far as that list does not include the names of the applicants, and of the preparatory measures for that decision and, by way of an ancillary measure, annulment of the decision awarding promotion points in the 2003 promotion procedure.
Held: The application is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible. Each party is to bear its own costs.
Summary
Officials – Actions – Interest in bringing proceedings
(Staff Regulations, Arts 90 and 91)
An action brought by an official seeking annulment of the list of officials promoted to the higher grade in a promotion procedure for a given year because that list does not contain the applicant’s name, and, by way of an ancillary measure, annulment of the promotion points awarded to him, is manifestly inadmissible where the applicant has not provided in his written submissions any specific information about his personal situation with regard to the promotion year in question, such as, in particular, his grade, seniority in grade, the number of promotion points that he received in total and in the various categories, and the promotion threshold for the grade in question, and has therefore not shown why he has a personal interest in bringing the action.
Furthermore, where the applicant’s written submissions are expressed in general, abstract terms, contesting in particular the award of certain categories of promotion points without stating to what extent that award adversely affects his own interests, without describing his individual case and without establishing a link between the grievances he invokes and his personal situation, those grievances do not concern his personal legal situation, but the general situation of the staff of his institution, and they cannot form the basis for the admissibility of the action, since an official is not entitled to act in the interests of the law or of the institutions and may put forward, in support of an action for the annulment of a measure, only such claims as relate to him personally.
(see paras 28-32, 36)
See: 85/82 Schloh v Council [1983] ECR 2105, para. 14; T‑163/89 Sebastiani v Parliament [1991] ECR II‑715, para. 25