CELEX: 62004TJ0385
Public service
Officials
Action for annulment
Action for damages
Promotion

1.
Officials – Actions – Act adversely affecting an official – Promotion system established by the Commission – Promotion exercise
concluded by an act involving a decision fixing the list of officials promoted and a decision determining the points allocated
to officials – Self-contained decisions against which separate actions or a single action may be brought
(Staff Regulations, Arts 45(1), 90 and 91)
2.
Procedure – Application initiating proceedings – Subject-matter of the dispute – Alteration once proceedings have been started
(Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 48(2); Staff Regulations, Arts 90 and 91)
3.
Officials – Promotion – Consideration of comparative merits – Procedures – Quantification of merits for allocation of points
(Staff Regulations, Art. 45(1))
1.
Under the promotion system established by an internal regulation of the Commission, in which the promotion exercise is concluded
by an act of a complex nature in that it comprises two distinct decisions by the appointing authority, the one establishing
the list of officials promoted and the other determining the total number of points on which the former decision is based,
that decision determining the total number of points is a self-contained act which may, as such, be the subject-matter of
a complaint and, where appropriate, a legal action in accordance with the remedies laid down by the Staff Regulations.
Consequently, an official who is not promoted on account of the allegedly unjustified award of an insufficient number of points
preventing him from reaching the promotion threshold may direct his action both against the appointing authority’s decision
fixing the total number of points and against that adopting the list of promoted officials.
On the other hand, the decision awarding the applicant priority points and the decision not to include him on the merit list,
as well as the list as such, constitute preparatory acts which may not be the subject of a separate action for annulment.
However, their lawfulness may always be disputed in the course of an action directed against the final decision.
(see paras 69-72)
See: T‑134/02
Tejada Fernández
v
Commission
[2003] ECR-SC I‑A‑125 and II‑609, para. 18; T‑311/04
Buendía Sierra
v
Commission
[2006] ECR II‑4137, paras 90, 93 and 96 to 98
2.
Article 48(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, under which new pleas in law may be introduced in
the course of proceedings if they are based on matters of law or of fact which come to light in the course of the procedure,
may be applied, in certain cases, to the amendment of pleadings. By virtue of the requirements of procedural economy, when
the contested act is replaced, in the course of proceedings, by an act having the same subject-matter, the latter constitutes
a new factor enabling the applicants to amend their pleadings. However, it is clear from Articles 90 and 91 of the Staff Regulations
that the action directed against an act adversely affecting the applicant, consisting in a decision taken by the appointing
authority, is admissible only if the official has previously submitted a complaint to the appointing authority and if the
complaint has been rejected by express or implied decision.
(see paras 76-78)
See: T‑161/00
Tsarnavas
v
Commission
[2001] ECR-SC I‑A‑155 and II‑721, paras 26 to 28; T‑55/03
Brendel
v
Commission
[2004] ECR-SC I‑A‑311 and II‑1437, para. 50 and the case-law cited therein
3.
In assessing the merits to be taken into consideration in the context of a promotion decision under Article 45 of the Staff
Regulations and, consequently, also in the context of a decision awarding points in a promotion system under which such an
assessment is quantified, the administration possesses a wide discretion and the Community judicature must restrict its review
to consideration of the question whether, regard being had to the various considerations which have influenced the administration
in making its assessment, the latter has kept within proper bounds and has not used its power in a manifestly incorrect way.
(see para. 131)
See: T-261/04
Crespinet
v
Commission
[2007] ECR-SC I-A-0000 and II-A-0000, para. 58 and the case-law cited therein