Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2003:252
Date: 2003-09-30
Based on: Merger Treaty (1965)
Subject matter: Staff regulations and employment conditions - EC
Concepts: Reports;Interpretation of provisions of the Staff Regulations
Procedure: Staff cases - successful

SUMMARY — CASE T-296/01 
Summary 
1. Officials - Reports procedure - Institution's internal guidelines on the reporting 
procedure - Legal effects 
(Staff Regulations, Arts 43 and 110) 
2. Officials - Reports procedure - Staff report - Drawing up - Rule adopted by 
the department concerned setting a maximum number of points and an average -
Interference with the assessor's freedom of judgment 
(Staff Regulations, Art. 43) 
3. Officials - Reports procedure - Staff report - Drawing up - Delay -
Inadmissibility — Administrative fault causing non-material damage - Requirement 
- Official not responsible for the delay 
(Staff Regulations, Art. 43) 
1. A decision of a Community institution communicated to all its staff and intended 
to guarantee the officials concerned the same treatment regarding the reporting 
procedure, even though it cannot be regarded as a general implementing provision 
within the meaning of Article 110 of the Staff Regulations, constitutes an internal 
directive and must, as such, be regarded as a rule of conduct, indicating the practice 
to be followed, which the administration imposes on itself and from which it may 
not depart without specifying the reasons for doing so, since otherwise the principle 
of equality of treatment would be infringed. 
(see para. 43) 
See: 190/82 Blomefield v Commission [1983] ECR 3981, para. 20; T-63/89 Latham v 
Commission [1991] ECR II-19, para. 25 
I-A - 226 
TATTI v COMMISSION 
2. A rule adopted by a department and regarded by the assessor as binding, which 
sets out, in a departure from the guide to the reporting procedure in force, a 
specified maximum number of points and an average, interferes with the assessor's 
freedom of judgment in assessing an official's performance. 
(see para. 49) 
3. The administration must ensure that staff reports are drawn up periodically on the 
dates laid down by the Staff Regulations and that they are drawn up in a proper 
form, both for reasons of sound administration and in order to safeguard the 
interests of officials. A delay in the drawing up of a staff report may in itself be 
prejudicial to the official for the simple reason that his career progress may be 
affected by the absence of such a report at a time when decisions concerning him 
must be taken. An official in possession of an irregular and incomplete personal file 
thereby suffers non-material damage as a result of being put in an uncertain and 
anxious state of mind with regard to his professional future. In the absence of 
special circumstances justifying the delays found to have occurred, therefore, the 
administration commits an administrative fault giving rise to liability on its part. 
On the other hand, an official cannot complain of delay in the drawing up of his 
periodic report when that delay is attributable to him, if only partially, or where he 
contributed considerably to the delay. However, the mere fact that the official has, 
during the reporting procedure, made use of the opportunity available under the 
relevant rules in force to refer his case to various bodies authorised to intervene in 
the procedure does not mean that the official is, to any significant extent, 
responsible for a delay. 
(see paras 58-65) 
See: 156/79 and 51/80 Gratreau v Commission [1980] ECR 3943. para. 15: 173/82. 
157/83 and 186/84 Castille v Commission [19861 ECR 497. para. 36; T-73/89 Barbi v 
I-A - 227 
SUMMARY — CASE T-296/01 
Commission [1990] ECR II-619, para. 41; T-20/89 Moritz v Commission [1993] ECR 
II-1423, para. 50; T-59/96 Burban v Parliament [1997] ECR-SC I-A-109 and II-331, 
paras 44 and 50; T-187/01 Melione v Commission [2002] ECR-SC I-A-81 and II-389, 
paras 77, 78 and 79 
I-A - 228