Information;Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2025:52
Date: 2025-01-22
Language of the case: French
Court formation: Fifth Chamber
Based on: Merger Treaty (1965)
Subject matter: Staff regulations and employment conditions - EC
Procedure: Staff cases - unfounded;Staff cases - inadmissible

Judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 22 January 2025 – Stanecki v Commission (Case T‑569/23) ( Civil service – Officials – Promotion – 2022 promotion exercise – Decision not to promote the applicant to grade AD 9 – Article 45 of the Staff Regulations – Existence of disciplinary proceedings – Presumption of innocence – Impartiality – Freedom of expression – Misuse of powers ) 1. Actions brought by officials – Interest in bringing proceedings – Action brought against a refusal to include in the list of officials eligible for promotion – Admissible only in relation to the applicant’s exclusion (see paragraphs 15, 16) 2. Actions brought by officials – Act adversely affecting an official – Concept – Purely informative measure – Not included (see paragraphs 17, 18) 3. Officials – Promotion – Consideration of comparative merits – Evidence capable of being taken into consideration – Disciplinary proceedings pending against the person concerned – Whether permissible – Limits – Re-examination of the decision not to promote following the conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings – Possibility of retroactively promoting the person concerned (Staff Regulations of Officials, Art. 45) (see paragraphs 42-44, 48) 4. Officials – Promotion – Consideration of comparative merits – Evidence capable of being taken into consideration – Disciplinary proceedings pending against the person concerned – Whether permissible – Infringement of the presumption of innocence – None – Power of the administration to promote the person concerned, then to demote him or her if the disciplinary proceedings are unsuccessful – Not included (Staff Regulations of Officials, Arts 4, 6, 45 and 51(1) and Annex IX, Art. 9(e) to (g)) (see paragraphs 45, 50, 51, 56) 5. Officials – Promotion – Consideration of comparative merits – Procedures – System established by the Commission – Recommendations of the Director-General or the Joint Promotion Committee – Binding nature on the appointing authority – None (Staff Regulations of Officials, Art. 45) (see paragraph 57) Operative part The Court: 1. Dismisses the action; 2. Orders Mr Rafal Stanecki to pay the costs.