Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2001:191
Date: 2001-07-12
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;Specific cases;Judicial review
Procedure: Staff cases - successful

SUMMARY - CASE T-131/00 
Summary 
1. Officials - Promotion - Complaint by an unsuccessful candidate - Decision 
rejecting complaint - Statement of reasons - Scope 
(Staff Regulations, Arts 25, second para., 45 and 90(2)) 
2. Officials - Promotion - Discretion of the administration - Judicial review -
Limits 
(Staff Regulations, Art. 45) 
3. Officials - Promotion - Consideration of comparative merits - Factors which 
may be taken into account - Performance by the official of duties corresponding 
to a grade lower than his own grade 
(Staff Regulations, Arts 5(1), 7(1) and 45) 
1. Although the appointing authority is not obliged to give reasons for a promotion 
decision in so far as they affect candidates who have not been promoted, it must 
give reasons for its decision rejecting a complaint lodged under Article 90(2) of the 
Staff Regulations by one of the candidates, since the reasons given for that adverse 
decision are deemed to be the same as those for the decision which was the subject 
of the complaint. That obligation to state reasons is intended, on the one hand, to 
provide the official concerned with sufficient information to determine whether the 
act adversely affecting him is well founded and whether it is appropriate to bring 
legal proceedings before the Community judicature and, on the other, to enable the 
latter to review the legality of the promotion decision. 
I-A - 162 
SCHOCHAERT v COUNCIL 
In that context, the requirement to state reasons is satisfied by a decision rejecting 
a complaint which shows clearly that the appointing authority considered that the 
level of the responsibilities attaching to the duties of the person concerned, as 
compared with that of the responsibilities attaching to the duties of the other officials 
eligible for promotion, was one of the reasons for not promoting him. 
(see paras 19, 21) 
See: C-343/87 Culin v Commission [1990] ECR I-225, para. 13; T-142/95 Delvaux v 
Commission [1997] ECR-SC I-A-477 and II-1247, paras 83 and 84; T-159/96 Wenk v 
Commission [1998] ECR-SC I-A-193 and II-593, para. 114 
2. For the purpose of the comparative examination of merits to be taken into 
consideration in making a promotion decision pursuant to Article 45 of the Staff 
Regulations, the appointing authority possesses a wide discretion, and in that 
connection review by the Community judicature must be confined to the question 
whether, having regard to the methods and processes by which the administration 
may have arrived at its assessment, it kept within proper bounds and did not use its 
power in a manifestly incorrect way. The Court cannot therefore substitute its 
assessment of the qualifications and merits of officials for that of the appointing 
authority. 
(see para. 36) 
See: 282/81 Ragusa v Commission [1983] ECR 1245, paras 9 and 13; T-283/97 Tliinus 
v Commission [1999] ECR-SC I-A-69 and II-353, para. 42 
I-A - 163 
SUMMARY - CASE T-131/00 
3. Although the level of the responsibilities attaching to the duties of the person 
concerned may, in certain circumstances, constitute a factor which it is appropriate 
to take into account for the purposes of promotion, in particular where the official 
in question has agreed to occupy a post in a career bracket in his category or service 
which is higher than his substantive career bracket, in accordance with Article 7(2) 
of the Staff Regulations, it is clear from the letter and the spirit of Articles 5 and 
7 of the Staff Regulations and from the principle of equal treatment of officials and 
their career progression that, when the appointing authority undertakes a 
comparative examination of the merits of the officials eligible for promotion, it may 
not exclude a priori those officials who, in its view, do not perform duties involving 
a sufficiently high level of responsibility to merit promotion. The fact that all the 
officials eligible for promotion are in the same category and grade implies that they 
are deemed to hold equivalent posts and responsibilities. 
(see paras 38, 42) 
See: 28/72 Tontodonati v Commission [1973] ECR 779, para. 8; T-18/90 Jongen v 
Commission [1991] ECR II-187, para. 27 
I-A - 164