CELEX: 62005FJ0030
Officials
Evaluation
Career development report
2003 assessment procedure
Obligation to state the reasons on which the report is based
Rights of the defence

1.
Officials – Reports procedure – Less favourable report influencing scope of obligation to state reasons
(Staff Regulations, Art. 43)
2.
Officials – Reports procedure – Observance of  the rights of the defence
(Staff Regulations, Arts 26, first and second paras, and 43)
3.
Officials – Reports procedure – Career development report
(Staff Regulations, Art. 43)
1.
The report to be used as a reference for determining whether the report for a particular year is less favourable than previous
reports, requiring particular attention to be paid to the statement of reasons, is the periodic report for the previous year,
whether or not it has subsequently been annulled.
(see para. 44)
2.
Neither the fundamental principle of observance of the rights of the defence nor the first and second paragraphs of Article
26 of the Staff Regulations which give concrete expression to that principle make the fact that a matter may be held against
an official in his appraisal report subject to the drawing-up, prior to the procedure leading to the adoption of that report,
of a written warning and the communication of that warning to the individual concerned.
That individual is also not justified in claiming that his rights of defence have been infringed because of the failure to
comply with internal directives of his institution concerning the obligation on hierarchical superiors to provide regular
feedback on officials’ performance during the reference period itself. The requirement to observe the right to a fair hearing,
that is to say, to offer an official to whom a decision adversely affecting him is addressed the opportunity to express his
views adequately, applies only once the procedure liable to culminate in such a decision has been initiated. Thus, as regards
the appraisal of officials, observance of that principle may be enforced only during the appraisal procedure, which necessarily
commences after the end of the reference period.
(see paras 74, 76-78)
See:
T-157/04
De Bry
v
Commission
[2005] ECR-SC I-A-199 and II‑901, paras 41, 42 and 45
3.
An official cannot reasonably plead, in support of an action directed against a career development report, that unauthorised
third parties have had access to that report. Such a fact, even if established, would have no effect on the legality of that
document.
(see para. 85)