Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2000:60
Date: 2000-03-09
Language of the case: French
Court formation: Third Chamber
Based on: Merger Treaty (1965)
Subject matter: Staff regulations and employment conditions - EC
Concepts: Assessment of the administration;Specific cases of acts having adverse effect;Specific cases;Ex post regularisation of an inadequate statement of reasons
Procedure: Staff cases - inadmissible;Action for damages - unfounded;Staff cases - successful

SUMMARY — CASE T-10/99 
Held: The decision of the Commission, confirmed by the implied 
decision rejecting the complaint, not to include the 
applicant's name on the list of officials promoted to Grade 
A 5 under the 1998 promotions procedure, published in 
Administrative notices of 6 April 1998, is annulled. The 
remainder of the application is dismissed. The 
Commission shall bear the costs. 
Summary 
1. Officials — Actions — Act adversely affecting an official — Concept — List of 
officials deemed most deserving — Preparatory act - Exclusion — Act open to 
challenge in an action for annulment of the promotion decision 
(Staff Regulations, Art. 90(2)) 
2. Officials - Actions — Act adversely affecting an official - Concept — Decision 
drawing up the list of officials promoted to Grade A 5 - Requirement, in order for 
the application to be admissible, that the official concerned has applied for a vacant 
post - None 
(Staff Regulations, Art. 90(2)) 
3. Officials — Promotion — Complaint by a candidate who has not been promoted 
— Decision rejecting the complaint — Statement of reasons — Scope — Complete 
absence of reasons — Regularisation during the pre-litigation procedure - Not 
permissible 
(Staff Regulations, Arts 25(2), 45 and 90(2)) 
I-A - 48 
VICENTE NUNEZ v COMMISSION 
1. The regularity of the list drawn up by the appointing authority of officials most 
deserving of promotion outside the career bracket, like other preparatory acts in the 
course of the administrative procedure, may only be called into question indirectly 
in an action for annulment of the final decision concluding the promotion procedure. 
The drawing-up of that list is only one of the successive stages for selecting officials 
for promotion which culminates in a decision specifying the officials promoted. The 
list is a preparatory act which does not produce any definitive effect and is therefore 
not an act adversely affecting an official within the meaning of Article 90(2) of the 
Staff Regulations. 
(see paras 27 and 28) 
See: 346/87 Bossi v Commission [1989] ECR 303, paras 22 and 23; T-82/89 Marcato v 
Commission [1990] ECR II-735, para. 43; T-506/93 Moat v Commission [1995] ECR-SC 
I-A-43 and II-147, para. 24 
2. The publication of the list of officials promoted to Grade A 5 in the Commission 
in a specific promotion procedure constitutes an act adversely affecting an official 
eligible for promotion to that grade whose name is not on the list. An application 
by such an official for annulment of the list in so far as it does not include his name 
cannot be dismissed as inadmissible on the ground that he failed to apply for one of 
the Grade A 5 posts declared vacant. 
(see paras 30 and 31) 
I-A - 49 
SUMMARY - CASE T-10/99 
3. Although the appointing authority is not under an obligation to provide 
unsuccessful candidates with reasons for its decision on promotion, it is required, 
on the other hand, to provide a statement of grounds for its decision rejecting a 
complaint lodged by an applicant who was not promoted, the statement of grounds 
for such a decision being deemed to be the same as the statement of reasons for the 
decision against which the complaint was directed. As, under Article 45 of the Staff 
Regulations, promotion involves choices, it suffices that the statement of reasons for 
the rejection of the complaint deals with the satisfaction of the legal conditions 
which under the Staff Regulations determine the regularity of the promotion. 
The total absence of a statement of reasons before an action is brought cannot be 
remedied by explanations provided after the action has been initiated. 
(see paras 42 and 47) 
See: C-343/87 Culin v Commission [1990] ECR I-225, paras 13 and 15; T-52/90 Volger 
v Parliament [1992] ECR II-121, para. 40; C-115/92 P Parliament v Volger [1993] ECR 
I-6549, paras 22 and 23; T-178/95 and T-179/95 Picciolo and Caló v Committee for the 
Regions [1997] ECR-SC I-A-51 and II-155, para. 34; T-6/96 Contargyris v Council 
[1997] ECR-SC I-A-119 and II-357, paras 147 and 148; T-142/95 Delvaux v Commission 
[1997] ECR-SC I-A-477 and II-1247, para. 84; T-283/97 Thinus v Commission [1999] 
ECR-SC II-353, para. 75; T-157/98 Oliveira v Parliament [1999] ECR-SC I-A-163 and 
II-851, para. 50 
I-A - 50