Judgment — ECLI:EU:F:2008:165
Date: 2008-12-11
Language of the case: French
Court formation: Second Chamber
Based on: Merger Treaty (1965)
Subject matter: Staff regulations and employment conditions - EC
Concepts: Assessment of the administration;Specific cases
Procedure: Staff cases

Summary Officials – Actions – Prior administrative complaint – Promotion system established by the Commission – Complaint against the list of officials promoted and against the determination of the points allocated to officials – Decision to reject – Statement of reasons (Staff Regulations, Arts 25, second para., 45 and 90(2)) Under the promotion system established by an internal regulation of the Commission, in which the promotion exercise culminates in an act comprising two separate decisions by the appointing authority, the one adopting the list of promoted officials and the other fixing the total number of points of officials, neither of those two decisions is supposed to include a statement of reasons. The obligation to state reasons is satisfied where the appointing authority states reasons for its decision rejecting a complaint against those decisions lodged under Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations. In that respect, since promotion is by selection, the appointing authority is not required to disclose to the unsuccessful candidate details of its comparison of his merits and those of the candidate who is promoted. Consequently, it is enough to satisfy the obligation to state reasons that the reply to the complaint mentions how the conditions governing promotion laid down by law and the Staff Regulations have been applied in the official’s individual situation. (see paras 89, 91) See: C-343/87 Culin v Commission [1990] ECR I‑225, para. 13 T-11/91 Schloh v Council [1992] ECR II‑203, paras 73, 85 and 86; T-6/96 Contargyris v Council [1997] ECR-SC I‑A‑119 and II‑357, paras 147 and 148; T-230/99 McAuley v Council [2001] ECR-SC I‑A‑127 and II‑583, paras 50 to 52; T-218/02 Napoli Buzzanca v Commission [2005] ECR-SC I‑A‑267 and II‑1221, para. 59; T‑311/04 Buendía Sierra v Commission [2006] ECR II‑4137, para. 147