Judgment — ECLI:EU:F:2012:187
Date: 2012-12-12
Language of the case: French
Court formation: Third Chamber
Based on: Merger Treaty (1965)
Subject matter: Staff regulations and employment conditions - EC
Procedure: Staff cases - unfounded;Staff cases - inadmissible;Action for damages - unfounded

Summary Officials — Promotion — Consideration of comparative merits — Administration’s discretion — Judicial review — Limits (Staff Regulations, Art. 45) For the purpose of the consideration of comparative merits in the context of a promotion decision provided for in Article 45 of the Staff Regulations, the appointing authority has a wide discretion. In particular, the administration enjoys a wide discretion as to the respective importance which it ascribes to each of the three criteria provided for in Article 45(1) of the Staff Regulations, the provisions of which do not preclude the possibility of weighting being applied between those criteria. However, the discretion thus allowed to the appointing authority is circumscribed by the need to carry out that comparative consideration of candidatures with care and impartiality, in the interests of the service and in accordance with the principle of equal treatment. In practice, that consideration must be carried out on a basis of equality, using comparable sources of information and comparable information. In that regard, review by the Tribunal must be limited to ascertaining whether, regard being had to the factors and reasons that led the administration to its assessment, it remained within unimpeachable limits and did not manifestly misuse its power. (see paras 38-41) See: 15 September 2005, T‑132/03 Casini v Commission, para. 52 and the case-law cited 24 March 2011, F‑104/09 Canga Fano v Council, para. 68, under appeal before the General Court of the European Union, Case T‑281/11 P; 28 September 2011, F‑9/10 AC v Council, para. 14