Judgment — ECLI:EU:F:2010:100
Date: 2010-09-14
Language of the case: French
Court formation: First Chamber
Based on: Merger Treaty (1965)
Subject matter: Staff regulations and employment conditions - EC
Procedure: Staff cases - unfounded;Staff cases - inadmissible

Summary 1. Actions for annulment — Judgment annulling a measure — Effects — Effects of the annulment of an act concluding an administrative proceeding (Art. 233 EC) 2. Officials — Reports procedure — Career development report — Drawing up (Staff Regulations, Art. 43) 3. Officials — Reports procedure — Career development report — System introduced by the Commission — Transition from the old to the new system (Staff Regulations, Art. 43) 4. Officials — Reports procedure — Career development report — Judicial review — Limits (Staff Regulations, Art. 43) 5. Officials — Reports procedure — Career development report — Change of assessment compared with previous report — Obligation to state reasons — Scope (Staff Regulations, Art. 43) 1. The annulment by the Courts of the Union of an act concluding an administrative proceeding which comprises several stages does not necessarily entail the annulment of the entire procedure prior to the adoption of the contested act, regardless of the grounds, procedural or substantive, of the judgment pronouncing the annulment. (see para. 49) See: T-2/95 Industrie des poudres sphériques v Council [1998] ECR II‑3939, para. 91 F-50/06 Lebedef-Caponi v Commission [2007] ECR-SC I‑A‑1‑109 and II‑A‑1‑597, para. 37; F-46/07 Tzirani v Commission [2008] ECR-SC I‑A‑1‑323 and II‑A‑1‑1773, para. 53 2. Where a draft career development report has been drawn up improperly, because the reporting officer failed to conduct the requisite prior assessment interview, that irregularity is effectively corrected if a formal interview is held with the reporting officer or countersigning officer after the report has been drawn up, but before it becomes final, at which the person concerned can submit his observations. (see paras 53-54) See: T‑155/03, T‑157/03 and T‑331/03 Cwik v Commission [2005] ECR-SC I‑A‑411 and II‑1865, paras 159 to 161 3. It follows from Article 4(1) and Article 7(1) of the general provisions for implementing Article 43 of the Staff Regulations, adopted by the Commission, that the appraisal of officials’ efficiency in the 2001/2002 exercise was conducted despite the fact that no objectives had been set in advance. However, the absence of objectives does not preclude the possibility that officials were allocated specific tasks by their immediate superiors. That being so, there is nothing to prevent the reporting officer from stating in the career development report for the reference period that the official did not achieve his objectives, where appropriate, provided that his tasks were defined in his job description, of which he was aware. The validity of such a report cannot be called into question by the argument that the tasks allocated to an official are not sufficiently precise to enable him to determine precisely how he is to carry them out. In such a situation, the onus was on him to ask his line managers for the necessary explanations and advice. (see paras 55-57) 4. The institutions of the Union enjoy a wide discretion in appraising the work of their officials. Consequently, value judgements relating to officials in career development reports are not subject to judicial review except as regards any irregularities of form or manifest errors of fact vitiating the assessments made by the administration or any misuse of power. (see para. 72) See: T-249/04 Combescot v Commission [2007] ECR-SC I-A-2-181 and II-A-2-1219, para. 78 5. The administration is obliged to state in a sufficient and detailed manner the reasons on which the career development report is based in order to give the person concerned an opportunity to make observations on those reasons, compliance with those requirements being all the more important where the assessment shows a decline compared with the previous report. However, since an official’s performance may vary from one reference period to another, it is necessary that the difference between successive career development reports must be sufficiently clear cut if the reporting officer and countersigning officer are to be under a particular obligation to provide a statement of reasons. (see paras 79, 81) See: T-187/01 Mellone v Commission [2002] ECR-SC I‑A‑81 and II‑389, para. 27 and the case-law cited therein; T-50/04 Micha v Commission [2005] ECR-SC I‑A‑339 and II‑1499, para. 36 F-111/05 Sanchez Ferriz v Commission [2007] ECR-SC I‑A‑1‑71 and II‑A‑1‑425, para. 65; F-93/08 N v Parliament [2009] ECR-SC I‑A‑1‑433 and II‑A‑1‑2339, para. 86