Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2002:99
Date: 2002-04-16
Based on: Merger Treaty (1965)
Subject matter: Staff regulations and employment conditions - EC
Concepts: Act adversely affecting the official;Organization of departments;Individual decisions
Procedure: Staff cases - unfounded;Staff cases - inadmissible

SUMMARY — CASE T-51/01 
Summary 
1. Officials - Actions — Act adversely affecting an official - Definition — 
Reassignment decision communicated orally to the person concerned 
(Staff Regulations, Arts 90 and 91) 
2. Officials - Assignment — Reorganisation of departments - Due regard to the 
equivalence of posts — Scope — Interests of the service 
(Staff Regulations, Art. 7) 
3. Officials - Assignment - Reorganisation of departments - Reassignment of an 
official together with his post - Obligation to consult the staff report - None 
4. Officials - Decision adversely affecting an official - Reassignment — Duty to 
state grounds — Scope 
(Staff Regulations, Art. 25, 2nd para.) 
1. An act adversely affects an official only where, in going beyond mere measures 
for the internal organisation of the service, it is capable of directly, individually and 
permanently affecting his position under the Staff Regulations. 
An oral reassignment decision which has the direct effect of excluding an official 
from the management structures impairs his administrative status inasmuch as it 
changes the nature of his duties and the conditions for their performance and must 
therefore be considered to be an act adversely affecting him. 
(see paras 24, 31, 33) 
I-A - 44 
FRONIA v COMMISSION 
See: 316/82 and 40/83 Kohler v Court of Auditors [1984] ECR 641, paras 9 to 11; 
C-32/92 P Moat v Commission [1992] ECR I-6379, paras 9 and 10; T-34/91 Whitehead 
v Commission [1992] ECR II-1723, para. 21; T-46/90 Devillez and Others v Parliament 
[1993] ECR II-699, para. 12; T-113/95 Mancini v Commission [1996] ECR-SC I-A-185 
and II-543, paras 23 to 27; T-78/96 and T-170/96 W. v Commission [1998] ECR-SC 
I-A-239 and II-745, paras 45 and 46 
2. The principle that the post to which an official is assigned should correspond to 
his grade calls, in the event of a change in an official's duties, for a comparison, not 
between his present and previous duties, but between his present duties and his 
grade. Accordingly, there is nothing to preclude the adoption of a decision 
involving the assignment of new duties which, although different from those 
previously carried out by the official and seen by him as constituting a diminution 
of his responsibilities, are nevertheless in conformity with the post corresponding 
to his grade. Consequently, even an actual diminution of the official's 
responsibilities does not constitute a breach of the principle of correspondence 
between post and grade unless his duties, taken as a whole, fall clearly short of 
those corresponding to his grade and post, taking account of their character, 
importance and scope. 
In terms of the principles governing the Community civil service, an institution has 
the power, within the limits of the Staff Regulations, to assign to a member of staff 
lower-grade duties than those which he carried out before. In that regard, the 
personal interests of the official in securing the progress of his career cannot 
legitimately override the interests of the service as defined by the institution, in 
particular in the context of a reorganisation. 
(see paras 53, 57) 
See: T-59/91 and T-79/91 Eppe v Commission [1992] ECR II-2061, paras 49 and 51; W. 
v Commission, cited above, para. 104, and the case law cited therein 
I-A - 45 
SUMMARY — CASE T-51/01 
3. In the context of a reorganisation of departments, a decision reassigning an 
official, which merely reassigns him together with his post without providing for 
him to continue in his previous duties, concerns the administrative status of that 
official only. In the absence of an appointment to a vacant post, the appointing 
authority is not required to make a choice based on the comparative merits of 
several candidates. Consequently, it is not required to consult the official's staff 
report with a view to possible comparison with the reports of other officials. 
(see para. 62) 
4. The reasons given for a decision adversely affecting an official are sufficient if 
the measure was adopted in circumstances known to the official concerned which 
enable him to understand its scope. That is the case where a reassignment decision 
in the interests of the service has been preceded by a letter and by discussions, in 
which the superiors of the person concerned have explained to him the situation and 
the reasons for the proposed reassignment, and where the official has had the 
opportunity to put forward his arguments against the decision excluding him from 
the management structures. 
(see para. 66) 
See: C-294/95 P Ojha v Commission [1996] ECR I-5863, para. 58; W v Commission, 
cited above, para. 141 
I-A - 46