CELEX: 62006FJ0009
Officials
Promotion

1.
Officials – Reports procedure – Staff report – Drawing up
(Staff Regulations, Arts 2, first para., and 43)
2.
Officials – Promotion – Criteria
(Staff Regulations, Art. 45)
1.
Where it has not been possible to draw up an official’s staff report under normal procedural conditions because of exceptional
circumstances, such as the fact that his assessor and his appeal assessor have left the institution and the directorate-general
to which he was posted has been disbanded, it is consistent with the need for continuity in administrative action for the
report to be drawn up by the director-general, who, under the terms of the decision adopted by the institution on the exercise
of the powers conferred by the Staff Regulations on the appointing authority, has powers not specifically referred to in that
decision.
(see para. 56)
2.
The assessment of the merits of the officials eligible for promotion is the decisive factor for all promotions, while the
appointing authority may take candidates’ age and seniority in grade or service into consideration only as a secondary factor.
However, where the merits of the officials eligible for promotion are equal, those additional criteria may rightly constitute
a decisive factor in the appointing authority’s choice.
A difference of two points between the analytical assessments of two officials eligible for promotion who also belong to two
different directorates-general may not be regarded as sufficiently significant, given the differences in reporting between
directorates-general, to prevent other objective criteria relating to the administrative and personal situation of the officials
in question from being taken into account as a secondary factor, such as seniority or the fact that they have already been
included in the list of the most deserving officials in a previous exercise .
(see paras 63, 67-68)
See:
C-207/99 P
Commission
v
Hamptaux
[2000] ECR I‑9485, para. 19
T-280/94
Lopes
v
Court of Justice
[1996] ECR-SC I‑A‑77 and II‑239, para. 138; T-221/96
Manzo-Tafaro
v
Commission
[1998] ECR-SC I‑A‑115 and II‑307, para. 17; of 13 March 2001 in T-116/00
Hørbye-Möller
v
Commission
, not published in the ECR, para. 39; T-163/01
Perez Escanilla
v
Commission
[2002] ECR-SC I‑A‑131 and II‑717, para. 29; T-134/02
Tejada Fernández
v
Commission
[2003] ECR-SC I‑A‑125 and II‑609, para. 42; T-132/03
Casini
v
Commission
[2005] ECR-SC I‑A‑253 and II‑1169, para. 57; T-472/04
Tsarnavas
v
Commission
[2007] ECR-SC I-A-2-000 and II-A-2-000, para. 67