Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2000:47
Date: 2000-02-22
Language of the case: French
Court formation: Fifth Chamber
Based on: Merger Treaty (1965)
Subject matter: Staff regulations and employment conditions - EC
Concepts: Assessment of the administration;Equal treatment and non-discrimination;General
Procedure: Staff cases - successful

SUMMARY — CASE T-22/99 
Summary 
1. Officials - Promotion — Examination of comparative merits - Automatic 
promotion of officials appearing on the list of most deserving candidates for the 
preceding year - Unlawful 
(Staff Regulations, Art. 45(1)) 
2. Officials - Equal treatment - Limits - Advantage unlawfully granted 
3. Officials — Promotion — Examination of comparative merits — Prior 
consideration of files within each Directorate General - Permissible - Subsequent 
consideration falling to Promotions Committee and subsequently the appointing 
authority — Scope 
(Staff Regulations, Art. 45(1)) 
1. A practice consisting in automatically promoting, unless they were no longer 
considered deserving of promotion, officials who, in the preceding promotion 
procedure, appeared on the list of most deserving candidates but had not been 
promoted manifestly infringes Article 45(1) of the Staff Regulations. First, 
promotion decisions presuppose an examination, by the appointing authority, of the 
comparative merits of those officials eligible for promotion as well as of their 
reports. Secondly, such comparison must be carried out in the context of each 
promotion procedure. 
I-A - 28 
ROSE v COMMISSION 
An official cannot, therefore, reasonably plead a breach of a guide to the promotions 
procedure in so far as it lays down the abovementioned practice. 
(see paras 36 to 38) 
See: Case T-3/92 Latham v Commission [1994] ECR-SCI-A-23 and II-83, para. 50; Case 
T-76/98 Hamptaia v Commission [1999] ECR-SC I-A-59 and II-303, paras 44, 46 and 
49 
2. An official cannot rely on the principle of equal treatment to claim the benefit of 
a practice contrary to the provisions of the Staff Regulations, since no person may 
plead in his own cause an unlawful act committed in favour of another. 
(see para. 39) 
See: Case T-30/90 Zoder v Parliament [1991] ECR II-207, para. 26 
3. In the context of a promotions procedure, the appointing authority is required to 
make its choice on the basis of a comparative examination of the staff reports and 
merits of the candidates eligible for promotion. To that end, it has a power under 
the Staff Regulations to undertake that examination in accordance with the procedure 
or method which it considers most appropriate. 
In those circumstances, prior consideration within each Directorate-General of the 
personal files of officials eligible for promotion is not likely to hinder proper 
consideration of their comparative merits and, on the contrary, is in accordance with 
the principle of good administration. 
I-A - 29 
SUMMARY — CASE T-22/99 
However, such prior consideration within the Directorates-General cannot take the 
place of the comparative examination which must be undertaken subsequently by the 
Promotions Committee. Every official eligible for promotion is therefore entitled 
to expect the Promotions Committee to compare his merits with those of other 
officials eligible for promotion to the grade concerned. 
By the same token, such appraisal of the comparative merits of all officials eligible 
for promotion by the Promotions Committee, leading to an initial selection from 
among those officials and to the establishment of a list of those most deserving of 
promotion, does not mean that the appointing authority can dispense with appraising 
the comparative merits of all the officials on that list itself in order to determine 
which of them ought to be promoted. 
In particular, if the comparative examination by the Promotions Committee of the 
merits of officials eligible for promotion to the grade concerned is not to be 
rendered purposeless, the appointing authority cannot be permitted to confine itself 
to examining the comparative merits of those officials ranked highest on the lists 
drawn up by the various Directorates-General. 
(see paras 55 to 59) 
See: Case 62/75 De Wind v Commission [1976] ECR 1167, para. 17; Case T-557/93 
Rasmussen v Commission [1995] ECR-SC I-A-195 and II-603, paras 20 and 21; Case 
T-130/95 X v Commission [1996] ECR-SC I-A-603 and II-1609, para. 67; Case T-234/97 
Rasmussen v Commission [1998] ECR-SC I-A-507 and II-1533, para. 24 
I-A - 30