Judgment — ECLI:EU:F:2009:129
Date: 2009-09-29
Language of the case: French
Court formation: Second Chamber
Based on: Merger Treaty (1965)
Subject matter: Staff regulations and employment conditions - EC
Concepts: General provisions for giving effect to the Staff Regulations (Art. 110);Assessment of the administration
Procedure: Staff cases - unfounded

Summary 1. Officials – Promotion – Consideration of comparative merits – Procedures – System introduced by the Commission – Distribution of priority points within directorates-general (Staff Regulations, Art. 45) 2. Officials – Promotion – Consideration of comparative merits – Procedures – System introduced by the Commission – Distribution of priority points – Criteria (Staff Regulations, Art. 45) 1. The general implementing provisions adopted by the Commission for Article 45 of the Staff Regulations are intended, as is clear from Article 5(1) of those provisions, to reward officials who are considered to be the most deserving and, in particular, those who have contributed towards achieving results which go beyond their individual objectives or who have made special efforts and achieved outstanding results in the performance of their duties, as borne out by their career development reviews. The ‘higher’ priority points made available to each directorate-general (6 to 10 priority points) are reserved, under Article 5(2) of the general implementing provisions, for the best-performing officials who have demonstrated their exceptional merit, while the ‘lower’ priority points (0 to 4 priority points) are distributed, under the same provision, among other the officials who are regarded as being deserving in the light of the criteria of the general implementing provisions. The award of priority points must therefore be based on considerations relating to the individual merits of the officials concerned, with ‘higher’ priority points reserved for officials who have demonstrated exceptional merits. It follows that when a director-general awards the ‘higher’ priority points, he is under no obligation to use up the quota available to him for that purpose. Article 5(3) of the general implementing provisions, which provides that, in principle, each directorate-general should use up the quota of priority points available to it, specifies in a footnote, however, that that provision does not call into question the principle of evaluating merit over time, particularly in categories with a small complement of staff, in which unused priority points may be justified. (see paras 65-68) See: T-311/04 Buendía Sierra v Commission [2006] ECR II‑4137, para. 290; T-261/04 Crespinet v Commission [2007] ECR-SC I‑A‑2‑0000 and II‑A‑2‑0000, para. 57; T-385/04 Valero Jordana v Commission [2009] ECR-SC I‑A‑2‑0000 and II‑A‑2‑0000, para. 130 2. Even though seniority in grade may, on a secondary level, play a role in the award of priority points by directorates-general to officials with equivalent merits where the number of points is not sufficient, merit remains the overriding criterion. Allowing seniority a decisive role in the decision awarding priority points would be contrary to Article 45 of the Staff Regulations and Article 5 of the general implementing provisions adopted by the Commission for Article 45, which, moreover, makes no reference to seniority in grade as a criterion for awarding priority points. (see para. 140) See: T-502/04 Lopparelli v Commission [2007] ECR-SC I-A-2-0000 and II-A-2-0000, para. 89; Valero Jordana v Commission, para. 145