Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2003:240
Date: 2003-09-18
Based on: Merger Treaty (1965)
Subject matter: Staff regulations and employment conditions - EC
Concepts: Promotion
Procedure: Staff cases - unfounded

SUMMARY - CASE T-241/02 
Summary 
1. Officials - Promotion - Administration's discretion - Judicial review - Limits 
(Staff Regulations, Art. 45) 
2. Officials - Promotion - Consideration of comparative merits - Equal treatment 
- Account taken of severity of assessments in order to eliminate subjectivity 
resulting from assessment by different reporting officers - Permissible 
(Staff Regulations, Art. 45) 
3. Officials - Promotion - Consideration of comparative merits - Consideration 
to be given to all officials eligible for promotion in all departments combined 
(Staff Regulations, Art. 45) 
4. Officials - Promotion - Complaint by a candidate who has not been promoted 
- Decision rejecting the complaint - Statement of reasons - Scope 
(Staff Regulations, Arts 45 and 90(2)) 
5. Officials - Promotion - Criteria — Merits - Taking into consideration of 
seniority and age - Subsidiary nature 
(Staff Regulations, Art. 45) 
I-A - 216 
CALLEBAUT v COMMISSION 
1. In a promotion procedure the appointing authority is required to make its choice 
on the basis of a consideration of the comparative merits of the officials eligible for 
promotion and of the reports on them. To that end, it has power under the Staff 
Regulations to undertake such consideration according to the procedure or method 
which it considers to be the most appropriate. 
The appointing authority has a wide discretion in assessing the merits to be taken 
into consideration in a decision on promotion under Article 45 of the Staff 
Regulations, and the review by the Community judicature is confined to determining 
whether, having regard to the various considerations which may have influenced the 
administration in making its assessment, it has remained within reasonable bounds 
and has not used its power in a manifestly incorrect way. The Court cannot 
therefore substitute its assessment of the qualifications and merits of the candidates 
for that of the appointing authority. However, the discretion which the 
administration is thus recognised as enjoying is circumscribed by the need to 
undertake a comparative consideration of the candidatures with care and 
impartiality, in the interest of the service and in accordance with the principle of 
equal treatment. In practice, that consideration must be undertaken on a basis of 
equality, using comparable sources of information. 
(see paras 21-22) 
See: 62/75 de Wind v Commission [1976] ECR 1167. para. 17: T-76/92 Tsirimokos v 
Parliament [1993] ECR II-1281. paras 20 and 21: T-557/93 Rasmussen v Commission 
[1995] ECR-SC I-A-195 and II-603. para. 20; T-262/94 Baiwir v Commission [1996] 
ECR-SC I-A-257 and II-739, para. 66: T-221/96 Manzo-Tafaro v Commission [1998] 
ECR-SC I-A-115 and II-307. para. 16: T-157/98 Oliveira v Parliament [1999] ECR-SC 
I-A-163 and II-851. para. 35 
I -A- 217 
SUMMARY - CASE T-241/02 
2. Since the administration is required to carry out the consideration of comparative 
merits under Article 45 of the Staff Regulations in accordance with the principle of 
equal treatment, the institution may reasonably take account, in considering the 
comparative merits of all officials eligible for promotion, of the severity of the 
assessments in order to eliminate subjectivity resulting from assessment by different 
reporting officers. 
(see para. 30) 
See: T-187/98 Cubero Vermurie v Commission [2000] ECR-SCI-A-195 and II-885, para. 
85 
3. The appointing authority would render purposeless the comparative examination 
of the merits of officials eligible for promotion to the grade concerned if it confined 
itself to examining only the merits of those officials ranked highest on the lists 
drawn up by the various Directorates-General. 
(see para. 38) 
See: T-22/99 Rose v Commission [2000] ECR-SC I-A-27 and II-115, para. 59 
4. Although the appointing authority is not under an obligation to provide 
unsuccessful candidates with reasons for its decision on promotion, it is required, 
on the other hand, to provide a statement of grounds for its decision rejecting a 
complaint lodged by an applicant who was not promoted, the statement of grounds 
for such a decision being deemed to be the same as the statement of reasons for the 
decision against which the complaint was directed. 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. 42) 
I-A - 218 
CALLEBAUT v COMMISSION 
See: C-343/87Culin v Commission [1990] ECR I-225. para. 13: C-115/92P Parliament 
v Volger [1993] ECR I-6549. paras 22 and 23; T-10/99 Vicente Nunez v Commission 
(2000] ECR-SC I-A-47 and II-203. para. 42 and the case-law cited 
5. In a promotion procedure, the appointing authority may take into consideration 
candidates' age and seniority in grade or service as a secondary factor. Where the 
merits of the officials eligible for promotion are equal, those additional criteria may 
even constitute a decisive factor in its choice. 
(see para. 44) 
See: T-280/94 Lopes v Court of Justice [1996] ECR-SC I-A-77 and II-239, para. 138; 
Manzo-Tafaro v Commission, cited above, para. 18 
I - A - 219