Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2000:192
Date: 2000-07-13
Language of the case: French
Court formation: Single Judge
Based on: Merger Treaty (1965)
Subject matter: Staff regulations and employment conditions - EC
Concepts: Assessment of the administration;General;Specific cases;Judicial review
Procedure: Staff cases - unfounded

SUMMARY - CASE T-157/99 
Summary 
1. Officials - Promotion - Complaint of an official not promoted - Rejection -
Statement of reasons - Scope 
(Staff Regulations, Arts 25, second para., and 45) 
2. Acts of the institutions - Presumption of legality 
(Art. 249 EC) 
3. Officials - Promotion - Discretion of the administration - Judicial review -
Limits 
(Staff Regulations, Art. 45) 
4. Officials - Promotion - Comparative examination of merits - Factors which 
may be taken into account - Professional experience acquired prior to taking up 
post with the institution - Performance by the official of duties corresponding to a 
grade higher than his own 
(Staff Regulations, Arts 7(1), subpara. 1, and 45) 
1. The obligation to state reasons for refusing a promotion, at least at the stage 
when a complaint is rejected, is intended, on the one hand, to provide the official 
concerned with sufficient information to determine whether the act adversely 
affecting him is well founded and whether it is appropriate to bring legal 
proceedings and, on the other, to enable the Court to review the legality of the 
contested decision. 
I-A - 152 
GRIESEL v COUNCIL 
Since promotions are 'by selection', under Article 45, the statement of reasons can 
concern only whether the legal conditions which, under the Staff Regulations, 
govern the validity of the procedure have been met. 
(see paras 19 and 20) 
See: T-142/95 Delvaax v Commission [1997] ECR-SC I-A-477 and II-1247, para. 84; 
Case T-157/98 Oliveira v Parliament [1999] ECR-SC I-A-163 and II-851, para. 50 
2. In the absence of any evidence calling in question the legality of measures 
adopted by the Community institutions, such measures are presumed to be lawful. 
(see para. 25) 
See: T-272/94 Brulant v Parliament [1996] ECR-SC I-A-513 and II-1397, para. 35 
3. Review by the Community judicature must be confined to the question whether, 
having regard to the various considerations which may have influenced the 
appointing authority in making its assessment, it has remained within reasonable 
bounds and has not used its authority in a manifestly incorrect manner. In 
particular, the Court cannot substitute its assessment of the merits and qualifications 
of the candidates for that of the appointing authority. 
(see para. 41) 
See: T-283/97 Thinus v Commission [1999] ECR-SC I-A-69 and II-353, para. 42 
I-A - 153 
SUMMARY - CASE T-157/99 
4. There is no specific obligation in the Staff Regulations requiring the appointing 
authority to take account, in a promotion procedure, of professional training or 
experience acquired by an official before he was recruited. 
Moreover, although the performance by an official of duties corresponding to a 
grade higher than his own runs counter to the first subparagraph of Article 7(1) of 
the Staff Regulations, it is no more than one factor among others to be borne in 
mind in connection with promotion. It is the interest of the service which 
constitutes the determining criterion for selecting candidates for promotion. 
(see paras 42 and 46) 
See: 189/73 Van Reenen v Commission [1975] ECR 445, para. 6; Case 25/77 De Roubaix 
v Commission [1978] ECR 1081, para. 17; Case T-262/94 Baiwir v Commission [1996] 
ECR-SC I-A-257 and II-739, para. 109; Joined Cases T-112/96 and T-115/96 Séché v 
Commission [1999] ECR-SC I-A-115 and II-623, para. 62 
I-A - 154