Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2003:225
Date: 2003-09-10
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-165/01 
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 - Signatures of those consulted 
(Staff Regulations, Art. 43) 
3. Officials - Reports procedure — Staff report - Purpose - Need for prior 
consultation of those who have had the official under their authority 
(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. 44) 
See: 148/73 Louwage v Commission [1974] ECR 81; 190/82 Blomefield v Commission 
[1983] ECR 3981 
I-A - 194 
MCAULEY v COUNCIL 
2. The signing of the staff report by those consulted before it is drawn up is not 
simply a formality, inasmuch as it is intended first of all to allow the subject of the 
report to know the identity of those who contributed to the report and thereby to 
exercise his right to defend himself in the reporting procedure, and secondly to 
allow those who have been consulted to comment on the assessments contained in 
the report. 
(see para. 50) 
3. The primary function of the staff report is to provide the administration with 
periodic information, which is as complete as possible, on the performance of their 
duties by officials. It cannot, as a rule, fulfil that function in a truly comprehensive 
manner if those under whose authority the official in question discharged his duties 
during the reporting period are not consulted in advance and given an opportunity 
to make any comments. 
(see para. 51) 
See: T-63/89 Latham v Commission [1991] ECR II-19. para. 27 
I-A - 195