Order — ECLI:EU:T:2007:116
Date: 2007-04-26
Language of the case: French
Court formation: Fourth Chamber
Based on: Merger Treaty (1965)
Subject matter: Staff regulations and employment conditions - EC
Concepts: Action brought by an official who has not been promoted
Procedure: Staff cases - inadmissible

Summary Officials – Actions – Interest in bringing proceedings (Staff Regulations, Arts 90 and 91) An action brought by an official seeking annulment of the list of officials promoted to the higher grade in a promotion procedure for a given year because that list does not contain the applicant’s name, and, by way of an ancillary measure, annulment of the promotion points awarded to him, is manifestly inadmissible where the applicant has not provided in his written submissions any specific information about his personal situation with regard to the promotion year in question, such as, in particular, his grade, seniority in grade, the number of promotion points that he received in total and in the various categories, and the promotion threshold for the grade in question, and has therefore not shown why he has a personal interest in bringing the action. Furthermore, where the applicant’s written submissions are expressed in general, abstract terms, contesting in particular the award of certain categories of promotion points without stating to what extent that award adversely affects his own interests, without describing his individual case and without establishing a link between the grievances he invokes and his personal situation, those grievances do not concern his personal legal situation, but the general situation of the staff of his institution, and they cannot form the basis for the admissibility of the action, since an official is not entitled to act in the interests of the law or of the institutions and may put forward, in support of an action for the annulment of a measure, only such claims as relate to him personally . (see paras 28-32, 36) See: 85/82 Schloh v Council [1983] ECR 2105, para. 14; T‑163/89 Sebastiani v Parliament [1991] ECR II‑715, para. 25