Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2003:345
Date: 2003-12-17
Based on: Merger Treaty (1965)
Subject matter: Staff regulations and employment conditions - EC
Concepts: Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Communities;Inter-institutional transfer;Principles of the law of the European civil service;Interpretation of provisions of the Staff Regulations;Obligations of the administration
Procedure: Staff cases - unfounded;Action for damages - unfounded

SUMMARY — CASET-133/02 
Summary 
1. Officials - Staff Regulations - Conditions of Employment of Other Servants -
Criterion for classification in grade on recruitment of an official - Application to 
members of the temporary staff 
(Staff Regulations, Art. 31(2)) 
2. Officials - Recruitment - Appointment in grade - Internal directive of an 
institution precluding appointment to the higher grade of the career bracket -
Unlawful 
(Staff Regulations, Art. 31(2)) 
3. Officials - Recruitment - Appointment in grade - Appointment to the higher 
grade of the career bracket - Appointing authority's discretion - Obligation, in 
certain cases, to consider the possibility of making such an appointment - Review 
by the Court - Limits 
(Staff Regulations, Art. 31(2)) 
4. Officials - Recruitment - Appointment in grade - Appointment to the higher 
grade of the career bracket - Account taken of exceptional qualifications -
Criteria 
(Staff Regulations, Art. 31(2) and Art. 32, second para.) 
5. Officials - Recruitment - Appointment in grade - Appointment to the higher 
grade of the career bracket - Account taken of exceptional qualifications -
Assessment in the light of the post in question - Breach of the principle of equal 
treatment cannot be relied on 
(Staff Regulations, Art. 31(2)) 
6. Officials - Administration's duty to have regard for the welfare of its servants 
- Scope — Limits 
I-A - 330 
CHAWDHRY v COMMISSION 
7. Officials - Recruitment - Decision concerning classification in grade -
Reasons - Scope 
(Staff Regulations, Art. 25, second para, and Art. 31(2)) 
1. Although Article 31(2) of the Staff Regulations on the criteria for the 
classification in grade of officials upon recruitment is not expressly stated in the 
Conditions of Employment of Other Servants to be applicable to temporary staff, 
the rules set out in that provision may reasonably be applied to members of the 
temporary staff, by virtue of the principle of sound administration. 
(see para. 35) 
See: T-217/96 Fabert-Goossens v Commission [19981 ECR-SC I-A-607 and II-1841. 
paras 41 and 42; T-203/97 Forvass v Commission [1999] ECR-SC I-A-129 and II-705. 
para. 42 
2. Article 31(2) of the Staff Regulations confers on the appointing authority or the 
authority authorised to conclude contracts of employment the option of appointing 
a candidate to the higher grade in his career bracket. That option must be construed 
as an exception to the general classification rules. Article 31 of the Staff Regulations 
does not lay down any specific condition governing the appointing authority's 
discretion to depart from the rule that classification should be at the starting grade 
in the career bracket. The discretion which Article 31(2) of the Staff Regulations 
confers on the appointing authority and, in the case of members of the temporary 
staff, the authority authorised to conclude contracts of employment may, however, 
be governed by internal directives of the institutions. However, internal directives 
adopted by the Community institutions may not derogate from the Staff Regulations. 
I-A - 331 
SUMMARY — CASE T-133/02 
In that respect, a Community institution cannot waive altogether the power 
conferred upon it by Article 31(2) of the Staff Regulations by debarring itself 
absolutely from appointing a newly-recruited official to a grade other than the 
starting grade in the career bracket. Therefore, an internal directive which governs 
the exercise of the discretionary power conferred by Article 31(2) of the Staff 
Regulations must leave open the possibility in exceptional cases of appointing a 
candidate to the upper grade in the career bracket. 
(see paras 36-37, 41) 
See: Opinion of Advocate General Slynn in 146/84 De Santis v Court of Auditors [1985] 
ECR 1723, 1724, 1728; C-155/98 P Alexopoulou v Commission [1999] ECR I-4069, 
para. 32, and Opinion of Advocate General Léger in the same case, ECR I-4071, 
point 3; T-17795 Alexopoulou v Commission [1995] ECR-SC I-A-227 and II-683, paras 
23 and 24 
3. Under Article 31(2) of the Staff Regulations the appointing authority or the 
authority authorised to conclude contracts of employment must consider the option 
of applying that provision, particularly where the circumstances of the department 
require the recruitment of a person with specific qualifications, or where the person 
recruited has exceptional qualifications. However, those authorities do not have to 
apply Article 31(2) of the Staff Regulations even if there is a candidate with 
exceptional qualifications. Where they have actually assessed the specific 
qualifications and practical experience of a person in the light of the criteria set 
down in Article 31 of the Staff Regulations, and subject to any conditions in respect 
of classification which they may have imposed on themselves in the vacancy notice, 
they are free to decide, taking into account the interests of the service, whether they 
should award a classification at a higher grade. It follows that even if 
newly-recruited officials and other members of staff fulfil the conditions for 
classification in the higher grade of their career bracket, they do not thereby have 
an automatic right to such classification. 
I-A - 332 
CHAWDHRY v COMMISSION 
In those circumstances, the Court's review of a decision concerning classification 
in grade cannot replace the assessment of the appointing authority or the authority 
authorised to conclude contracts of employment. The Court must confine itself to 
verifying that there has been no infringement of essential procedural requirements, 
that the appointing authority or the authority authorised to conclude contracts of 
employment has not based its decision on incorrect or incomplete material facts and 
that the decision is not vitiated by misuse of powers, an error of law or an 
inadequate statement of grounds. It is also for the Court to verify that the person 
who took the decision did not use his power in a manifestly incorrect way. 
(see paras 44-45) 
See: T-17/95 Alexopoulou v Commission, cited earlier, para. 21; T-195/96 Alexopoulou 
v Commission [1998] ECR-SC I-A-51 and II-117. paras 36. 38 and 43: T-381/00 
Wasmeier v Commission [2002] ECR-SC I-A-125 and II-677, para. 56 
4. The exceptional qualifications referred to in the second paragraph of Article 32 
of the Staff Regulations must be assessed, not by comparison with the population 
as a whole, but in relation to the average level of qualification of successful 
candidates in competitions, who represent a group of people who are already very 
rigorously selected in accordance with the requirements of Article 27 of the Staff 
Regulations. However, that comparison must not be with successful candidates in 
all competitions or selection procedures, but with successful candidates in similar 
competitions or selection procedures to that through which the person concerned was 
recruited. On the other hand, the comparison must not be confined merely to 
successful candidates in the same selection procedure. The appointing authority and 
the authority authorised to conclude contracts of employment have broad discretion 
in determining the selection procedures and the period to be taken into account here. 
(see para. 76) 
Sec: T-12/97 Barnett v Commission [1997] ECR-SC I-A-313 and II-863, paras 50 and 51 : 
Wasmeier v Commission, cited earlier, para. 73; T-6/02 Platte v Commission [2002] 
ECR-SC I-A-189 and II-973. para. 38 
I-A - 333 
SUMMARY — CASE T-133/02 
5. The exceptional nature of a newly-recruited official's qualifications cannot be 
assessed in the abstract, but must be assessed in the light of the post for which he 
was recruited. The casuistic nature of that assessment means that the person 
concerned cannot reasonably rely on a breach of the principle of equal treatment. 
(see para. 102) 
See: Wasmeier v Commission, cited earlier, para. 76 
6. The administration's duty to have regard for the welfare of its servants reflects 
the balance of reciprocal rights and obligations established by the Staff Regulations 
in the relationship between the official authority and the civil servants. A particular 
consequence of this duty is that when the official authority takes a decision 
concerning the situation of an official or other member of staff it should take into 
consideration all the factors which may affect its decision and that when doing so 
it should take into account not only the interests of the service but also those of the 
official concerned. The protection of the rights and interests of officials must always 
be subject to compliance with the rules in force. 
(see para. 107) 
See: Forvass v Commission, cited earlier, paras 53 and 54, and the case-law cited 
7. The Community institution is not required, as part of its obligation to state 
reasons, to provide detailed statistics, in the decision classifying a member of the 
scientific and technical staff, on the classification in grade and step of other 
members of the same staff when they were recruited. 
I-A - 334 
CHAWDHRY v COMMISSION 
First, such details are not relevant for verifying that the qualifications of the person 
concerned were properly assessed, given the casuistic nature of that assessment. 
Second, a decision on classification has certain similarities with a decision on 
promotion. Those similarities warrant the application to decisions on classification 
in grade of the principles governing the obligation to state reasons for promotion 
decisions, as regards which the obligation may reasonably be satisfied at the stage 
when a decision is taken on a complaint, and it is sufficient for the statement of 
reasons to relate to the satisfaction of the legal conditions which under the Staff 
Regulations govern the regularity of the promotion procedure, there being no need 
to reveal the comparative assessment which the appointing authority has undertaken. 
It is sufficient that the appointing authority inform the official concerned of the 
relevant individual ground for the decision taken concerning him. 
It follows that the statement of reasons for the decision on classification in grade 
may be confined to stating that the situation of the person concerned has in fact been 
considered in the light of Article 31(2) of the Staff Regulations, and to describing 
the assessment made in that context of his qualifications and the post for which he 
was recruited. On the other hand, there is no need to provide details of the 
classification of other members of staff or statistics relating thereto. 
(see paras 119-122) 
See: C-155/98 P Alexopoulou v Commission, cited earlier, para. 27; T-230/99 McAuley 
v Council [2001] ECR-SC I-A-127 and II-583. para. 52, and the case-law cited: Wasmeier 
v Commission, para. 142 
I-A - 335