Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2001:267
Date: 2001-11-15
Based on: Merger Treaty (1965)
Subject matter: Staff regulations and employment conditions - EC
Concepts: Promotion
Procedure: Staff cases - successful

SUMMARY - CASE T-194/99 
Summary 
Officials — Promotion - Consideration of comparative merits — Taking into 
consideration of periodic reports — Incomplete personal file — Consequences 
(Staff Regulations, Arts 43 and 45) 
The periodic report constitutes an indispensable criterion of assessment each time 
the official's career is taken into consideration by the administration and a 
promotion procedure is tainted with irregularity where the appointing authority has 
not been able to consider the comparative merits of the candidates because there has 
been a delay in drawing up one or more periodic reports. 
However, that does not mean that when the promotion decision is made all the 
candidates must be at exactly the same stage regarding the state of their periodic 
reports or that the appointing authority must postpone its decision if the most recent 
report on one or other of the candidates is not yet definitive as a result of referral 
to the appeal assessor or to the Joint Committee on Staff Reports. 
It follows that it is, in principle, permissible for the appointing authority to examine 
the comparative merits of the officials eligible for promotion even though it does not 
have available to it the most recent periodic report of one of the candidates and that 
that circumstance alone does not in itself constitute an irregularity in the promotion 
procedure. 
I-A - 216 
SEBASTIANI v COMMISSION 
However, that course of action does give rise to an irregularity where the definitive 
periodic report is missing not as a result of the normal course of the reporting 
procedure but because of a substantial delay in that procedure which is attributable 
solely to the administration. 
In that regard, the irregularity arising from the absence of the periodic report of one 
of the candidates at the time of the consideration of comparative merits does not 
incur a sanction in two situations. 
Firstly, in exceptional circumstances, the absence of a periodic report may be 
compensated for by the existence of other information on an official's merits. In that 
regard, information can compensate for the absence of a periodic report only where 
it meets certain conditions, and it is for the defendant institution to show that all 
those conditions were satisfied. First, the information must be sufficiently objective 
to allow judicial review; second, it must contain an assessment of the official's 
merits by the persons responsible for drawing up his periodic report; third, it must 
have been communicated to the official in such a way as to ensure his rights of 
defence, and fourth, it must be available to the Promotion Committee when it 
examines the comparative merits of all the candidates. 
Secondly, the fact that the personal file of one candidate is irregular and incomplete 
is not a sufficient ground for the annulment of the promotions; it must also be 
established that this was capable of having a decisive effect on the promotion 
procedure. 
(see paras 43-46, 54, 60) 
See: 156/79 and 51/80 Gratreau v Commission [1980] ECR 3943, paras 22 and 24; 
263/81 List v Commission [1983] ECR 103, paras 25 to 27; 7/86 Vincent v Parliament 
[1987] ECR 2473, paras 16 and 17; C-68/91 P Moritz v Commission [1992] ECR I-6849, 
I-A - 217 
SUMMARY - CASE T-194/99 
paras 16 to 18; T-386/94 Allo v Commission [1996] ECR-SC I-A-393 and II-1161, para. 
38; T-82/98 Jacobs v Commission [2000] ECR-SC I-A-39 and II-169, para. 41 ; T-202/99 
Rappe v Commission [2000] ECR-SC I-A-201 and II-911, paras 39, 40, 44, 45 and 56 
I-A - 218