Order — ECLI:EU:T:1998:28
Date: 1998-02-13
Language of the case: French
Court formation: First Chamber
Based on: Merger Treaty (1965)
Subject matter: Staff regulations and employment conditions - EC
Concepts: Grading;Concept
Procedure: Staff cases - unfounded;Staff cases - inadmissible

ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (First Chamber) 
13 February 1998 
Case T-195/96 
Spyridoula Alexopoulou 
v 
Commission of the European Communities 
(Officials - Article 31(2) of the Staff Regulations - Application manifestly 
inadmissible or entirely unfounded) 
Full text in French II - 117 
Application for: on the one hand, the annulment, first, of the decision of 
the Commission of 8 January 1996 appointing the 
applicant to Grade A 7, Step 5, and implicitly refusing to 
appoint her to Grade A 6 and, secondly, the decision of 28 
August 1996 rejecting a complaint against that decision 
and, on the other, for compensation for the material 
damage suffered by the applicant. 
Decision: Application dismissed. 
I-A-51 
ABSTRACT - CASE T-195/96 
Abstract of the Order 
The applicant was a member of the temporary staff in Grade A 7 from 1989 and, 
after passing internal Competition No COM/T/A/93, was appointed by decision of 
5 April 1994 of the appointing authority as a probationary official as an 
administrator in Grade A 7, Step 5, with effect from 1 December 1993. 
The applicant brought an action for annulment of that decision in so far as it 
appointed her to Grade A 7, Step 5, and by implication refused to appoint her to 
Grade A 6. By judgment in Case T-17/95 Alexopoulou v Commission [1995] 
ECR-SC 11-683 {Alexopoulou I), the Court annulled the decision in so far as it 
concerned the applicant's classification in grade. 
On 17 November 1995 the applicant submitted a request to be reclassified in Grade 
A 6, Step 8. 
In accordance with the judgment in Alexopoulou I, the appointing authority then 
reconsidered the applicant's position under the Staff Regulations. On 8 January 
1996 it took a fresh decision classifying the applicant in Grade A 7, Step 5, with 
effect from 1 December 1993 (the decision of 8 January 1996). According to that 
decision, the post to which the applicant was appointed did not require to be filled 
by an official with a level of qualification such as to justify an exception to the 
principle of recruitment in the starting grade of a career bracket. So far as concerns 
the applicant's qualifications, the appointing authority found, pursuant to the 
discretion conferred upon it by Article 31 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the 
European Communities (the Staff Regulations), that they were not so exceptional as 
to justify an exception to the general principle of classification in the starting grade 
of a career bracket upon appointment. 
I-A - 52 
ALEXOPOULOU v COMMISSION 
On 3 April 1996 the applicant lodged a complaint against the decision of 8 January 
1996. By decision adopted on 28 August 1996, notified to the applicant on 
3 September 1996, the Commission rejected that complaint (decision of 28 August 
1996). 
Law 
Vie claim for annulment of the decision of 8 January 1996 
Under Article. 31(2) of the Staff Regulations, the appointing authority has the power 
to appoint a newly recruited official to the upper grade in the starting or 
intermediate career bracket. In certain cases, the appointing authority is required 
to assess the specific qualifications and practical experience of the official in the 
light of the criteria set down in Article 31 of the Staff Regulations. However, 
where it has in fact made such an assessment, and subject to any conditions in 
respect of classification which it may have imposed on itself in the vacancy notice, 
the appointing authority is free to decide, taking into account the interests of the 
service, whether it should award a classification at a higher grade (paragraphs 36 
and 38). 
See: Alexopouloii /, cited above, para. 21; T-12/97 Barnett v Commission [1997] ECR-SC 
11-863, para. 47 
In that regard, judicial review cannot take the place of the assessment made by the 
appointing authority. It must be restricted to the question whether there has been 
any breach of essential procedural requirements, the decision is based on incorrect 
or incomplete findings of fact or is vitiated by misuse of powers, errors of law oí­
an inadequate statement of reasons (paragraph 39). 
See: C-298/93 P Klinke v Court of Justice [1994] ECR 1-3009, para. 31 : Barnettv Commission, 
cited above, para. 53 
I-A - 53 
ABSTRACT - CASE T-195/96 
In claiming that the appointing authority committed a manifest error of assessment 
as regards the exceptional nature of her qualifications, the applicant maintains that 
the appointing authority could exercise its discretion only by appointing her to the 
higher grade in the career bracket. However, even where newly-recruited officials 
fulfil the conditions for classification in the higher grade, they do not thereby have 
an automatic right to such classification (paragraph 43). 
See: 123/75 Küster v Parliament [1976] ECR 1701, para. 10; C-l 19/94 P Coussios v 
Commission [1995] ECR 1-1439, para. 19; T-142/95 Delvaux v Commission [1997] 
ECR-SC 11-1247, para. 39 
The claim for annulment of the decision of 28 August 1996 rejecting the complaint 
of 3 April 1996 
Every decision purely and simply rejecting a complaint, whether that decision be 
express or implied, does no more than confirm the act or failure to act to which the 
complainant takes exception and does not constitute, by itself, a measure which is 
open to challenge (paragraph 48). 
See: 33/79 and 75/79 Kuhner v Commission [1980] ECR 1677, para. 9; 371/87 Progoulis v 
Commission [1988] ECR 3081, para. 17 
Compensation for material damage 
The action for compensation for the damage arising, according to the applicant, 
from the fact that she could have been promoted to Grade A 5 from 1 December 
1995 if she had been established in Grade A 6 with effect from 1 December 1993 
cannot succeed unless the applicant was entitled to be promoted to Grade A 5 at that 
date (paragraph 53). 
I-A - 54 
ALEXOPOULOU v COMMISSION 
Officials do not have an automatic right to promotion even if they fulfil the 
conditions for promotion. In assessing the merits to be taken into consideration 
when deciding on a promotion pursuant to Article 45 of the Staff Regulations, the 
appointing authority has a large measure of discretion (paragraph 54). 
See: Coussios v Commission, cited above, para. 19; Delvaia v Commission, cited 
above, para. 39 
Operative part: 
The application is dismissed. 
I-A - 55