Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2015:890
Date: 2015-11-26
Language of the case: English
Court formation: Appeals Chamber
Based on: Merger Treaty (1965)
Subject matter: Staff regulations and employment conditions - EC
Procedure: Appeal - unfounded;Staff cases;Action for damages
Origin: Spain

Summary 1. Appeal — Grounds — Inadequate statement of reasons — Jurisdiction of the General Court — Review of the scope of the obligation to state reasons — Facts on which Civil Service Tribunal based its findings to be taken into consideration (Art. 257 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Annex I, Art. 11(1); Staff Regulations, Art. 25, second para.) 2. Officials — Reports procedure — Career development report — Obligation to state reasons — Scope — Cases requiring specific reasons to be stated (Staff Regulations, Art. 43) 3. Officials — Reports procedure — Appraisal report — Discrepancy between the appraisal interview and the general assessment level awarded to the official — Lawfulness — Misuse of powers — None (Staff Regulations, Art. 43) 4. Judicial proceedings — Measures of inquiry — Hearing of witnesses — Discretion of the Courts of the Union (Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal, Art. 58(1)) 1. The issue of whether adequate reasons have been stated for a decision is a question of law reviewable by the General Court on appeal. Review by the court of appeal in this context of the legality of a decision must of necessity take into consideration the facts on which the court at first instance based its findings as to the adequacy or inadequacy of the statement of reasons. (see para. 77) See: Judgment of 20 November 1997 in Commission v V, C‑188/96 P, ECR, EU:C:1997:554, paragraph 24 2. The appraisal report must state specific reasons where the assessor intends not to follow the recommendations of the Joint Evaluation and Promotion Committee and where the committee’s opinion mentions special circumstances likely to cast doubt on the validity or proper foundation of the original assessment. (see para. 78) See: Judgment of 30 September 2004 in Ferrer de Moncada v Commission, T‑16/03, ECR-SC, EU:T:2004:283, paragraph 50 3. In the context of drawing up the career development report of an official of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM), the existence of a discrepancy between the appraisal interview and the general assessment level awarded to the appellant in the contested report does not constitute evidence of a misuse of powers. That discrepancy may be readily explained by the appraisal procedure itself, provided for by the general implementing provisions adopted by OHIM for Article 43 of the Staff Regulations, from which it is apparent that the definitive appraisal report is drawn up not by the reporting officer but by the countersigning officer, whose duty is to ensure harmonisation of the appraisal criteria in all the reports which he signs. (see para. 110) 4. In relation to an action brought by an official seeking annulment of his career development report, the Tribunal cannot be alleged to have distorted the clear sense of the evidence by not summoning the reporting officer as a witness by way of a measure of inquiry. In this regard, the Tribunal is entitled to reject a plea alleging misuse of powers as unfounded, without considering it necessary to adopt the measure of inquiry mentioned above. (see para. 111) See: Judgment of 12 May 2010 in Commission v Meierhofer, T‑560/08 P, ECR, EU:T:2010:192, paragraph 61