Judgment — ECLI:EU:F:2014:265
Date: 2014-12-11
Language of the case: English
Court formation: Third Chamber
Based on: Merger Treaty (1965)
Subject matter: Staff regulations and employment conditions - EC
Procedure: Staff cases - unfounded

Summary 1. Actions brought by officials — Interest in bringing proceedings — Action for annulment of an evaluation report brought by a member of the temporary staff after leaving the service — Interest in bringing proceedings retained (Staff Regulations, Arts 90 and 91) 2. Officials — Reports procedure — Staff report — Appraisal less favourable than the previous appraisal — Obligation to state reasons — Scope (Staff Regulations, Art. 43) 1. In order for an applicant to be able to pursue an action for annulment of a decision of the administration, he must have a personal, vested and current interest in the annulment of that decision even after his action has been brought. With regard to the applicant’s interest in seeking the annulment of the contested evaluation report, it is necessary to assess whether the applicant has established the existence of a special circumstance proving a current, personal interest in obtaining the annulment, even after definitive termination of his service. Where a member of the temporary staff states in an action seeking annulment of an evaluation report that the defendant decided not to renew his contract on the basis, inter alia, of the contested evaluation report and that he had brought an action against that decision before the Civil Service Tribunal, the fact that the applicant’s employment contract ended does not, in itself, deprive the contested evaluation report of any purpose and therefore does not cause the applicant to lose his interest in taking proceedings to contest that report. (see paras 25-28) See: Order in N v Commission, T‑97/94, EU:T:1998:270, para. 26; judgment in Dionyssopoulou v Council, T‑105/03, EU:T:2005:189, para. 20, and order in Marcuccio v Commission, T‑46/08 P, EU:T:2009:362, para. 50 and the case-law cited therein Judgment in Solberg v EMCDDA, F‑148/12, EU:F:2013:154, para. 16 2. The administration is under an obligation to state the reasons for every staff report in sufficient detail to put the person concerned in a position to comment on those reasons, compliance with those requirements being all the more important where the appraisal is less favourable than the previous appraisal. (see para. 38) See: Judgment in Ferrer de Moncada v Commission, T‑16/03, EU:T:2004:283, para. 53 Judgment in Nastvogel v Council, F‑4/10, EU:F:2011:134, para. 58 and the case-law cited therein