Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2000:227
Date: 2000-10-05
Based on: Merger Treaty (1965)
Subject matter: Staff regulations and employment conditions - EC
Concepts: Promotion
Procedure: Staff cases - unfounded;Action for damages - unfounded;Staff cases - successful;Action for damages - inadmissible

SUMMARY — CASE T-202/99 
Summary 
1. Officials - Promotion - Complaint by an unsuccessful candidate - Decision 
rejecting complaint - Statement of reasons - Scope 
(Staff Regulations, Arts 25, second para., 45 and 90(2)) 
2. Officials - Promotion - Consideration of comparative merits - Taking into 
consideration of periodic reports - Incomplete personal file - Consequences 
(Staff Regulations, Arts 43 and 45) 
1. Although the appointing authority is not under an obligation to provide 
unsuccessful candidates with reasons for its decision on promotion, it must, on the 
other hand, give its decision for rejecting complaints lodged by those officials. As, 
under Article 45 of the Staff Regulations, promotion involves choices, it suffices 
that the statement of reasons for the rejection of the complaint deals with the 
satisfaction of the legal conditions which under the Staff Regulations determine the 
regularity of the promotion. 
(see para. 28) 
See: T-10/99 Nuñez v Commission [2000] ECR-SC I-A-47 and II-203, para. 42 
2. The periodic report constitutes an indispensable criterion of assessment each time 
the official's career is taken into consideration by the administration and a 
promotion procedure is tainted with irregularity where the appointing authority has 
not been able to consider the comparative merits of the candidates because there has 
I-A - 202 
RAPPE v COMMISSION 
been a substantial delay on the part of the administration in drawing up the periodic 
reports of one or more of them. 
However, that does not mean that when the promotion decision is made all 
applicants must be at exactly the same stage regarding the state of their periodic 
reports or that the appointing authority must postpone its decision if the most recent 
report on one or other of the applicants is not yet final as a result of referral to the 
appeal assessor or to the Joint Committee. There can, however, be an irregularity 
where the periodic report is missing not as a result of the normal course of the 
reporting procedure but of a substantial delay which is attributable to the 
administration. 
On the other hand, the abovementioned irregularity does not incur a sanction in two 
situations. 
First, in exceptional circumstances, the absence of a periodic report may be 
compensated for by the existence of other information on an official's merits. A 
periodic report which is not final and, moreover, challenged by the official may not 
of itself serve as a source of such other information. Furthermore, such other 
information must meet certain conditions and it is for the defendant institution to 
show that they have been satisfied. They must be sufficiently objective to allow 
judicial review, contain an assessment of the official's merits by the persons 
responsible for drawing up his periodic report, have been communicated to the 
official in such a way as to ensure his rights of defence and, finally, be known to 
the promotions committee when the latter considers the comparative merits of all the 
candidates. 
I-A - 203 
SUMMARY - CASE T-202/99 
Secondly, that fact that the personal file of one candidate is irregular and incomplete 
is not a sufficient ground for the annulment of the promotions. It must also be 
established that this was capable of having a decisive effect on the promotion 
procedure. 
(see paras 38-40, 45,52,56) 
See: 24/79 Oberthür v Commission [1980] ECR 1743, para. 8; 156/79 and 51/80 
Gratreau v Commission [1980] ECR 3943, paras 22 and 24; 263/81 List v Commission 
[1983] ECR 103, para. 27; 7/86 Vincent v Parliament [1987] ECR 2473, paras 16 and 
17; C-68/91 P Moritz v Commission [1992] ECR I-6849, para. 16; T-386/94 Allo v 
Commission [1996] ECR-SC I-A-393 and II-1161, para. 38; T-144/95 Michael v 
Commission [1996] ECR-SC I-A-529 and II-1429, para. 52; T-82/98 Jacobs v 
Commission [2000] ECR-SC I-A-39 and II-169, para. 40 
I-A - 204