Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2000:179
Date: 2000-07-05
Language of the case: French
Court formation: Fourth Chamber
Based on: Merger Treaty (1965)
Subject matter: Staff regulations and employment conditions - EC
Concepts: Admissibility and examination of applications, forms of order sought and pleas in law;Choice of procedure;Duty to have regard for the interests of officials;Plea alleging misuse of powers
Procedure: Staff cases - unfounded

Summary 
1. Procedure - Application initiating proceedings - Procedural requirements -
Summary of the pleas in law on which the application is based - Similar 
requirements for submissions in support of a plea in law 
(Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 44(1)) 
I-A - 135 
SUMMARY - CASE T-111/99 
2. Officials - Administration's duty to have regard for the welfare of officials -
Scope - Filling of vacant posts - Judicial review - Limits 
3. Officials - Recruitment - Procedures - Choice - Discretion of the 
administration 
(Staff Regulations, Art. 29) 
4. Officials - Appeals - Fleas in law - Misuse of powers - Concept 
1. Under Article 44(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, the 
application initiating proceedings must contain a summary of the pleas in law on 
which it is based. That summary must be sufficiently clear and precise to enable 
the defendant to prepare its defence and the Court to rule on the action, if necessary 
without any other supporting information. The application must, therefore, specify 
the nature of the grounds on which it is based and, accordingly, a mere abstract 
statement of the grounds does not satisfy the requirements of the Rules of 
Procedure. Similar requirements are called for where a submission is made in 
support of a plea in law. 
(see para. 27) 
See: T-352/94 Mo och Domsjö v Commission [1998] ECR II-1989 
2. The administration's duty to have regard to the welfare of officials reflects the 
balance of reciprocal rights and obligations established by the Staff Regulations in 
the relationship between the administration and public servants. That duty means, 
in particular, that when it adopts a decision concerning the situation of an official, 
the appointing authority must take into consideration all the factors which may affect 
its decision and that, when doing so, it should take into account not only the 
interests of the service but also those of the official concerned. 
I-A - 136 
SAMPER v PARLIAMENT 
When filling vacant posts, the requirements of the duty to have regard for the 
welfare of officials cannot prevent the appointing authority from adopting the 
measures which it considers necessary in the interest of the service, since each post 
must be filled primarily on the basis of that interest. In view of the extent of the 
discretion enjoyed by the institutions when assessing the interest of the service, the 
Court's review must be confined to the question whether the appointing authority 
has remained within reasonable bounds and has not used its powers in a manifestly 
incorrect manner. 
(see paras 43 and 44) 
See: T-562/93 Obst v Commission [1995] ECR-SC I-A-247 and II-737, paras 69 and 70; 
Joined Cases T-112/96 and T-115/96 Séché v Commission [1999] ECR-SC I-A-115 and 
II-623, paras 147, 148 and 149 
3. It is for the appointing authority to choose, in accordance with the order of 
preference set out in Article 29 of the Staff Regulations, the most appropriate 
method of filling a vacant post. To that end, the appointing authority enjoys a wide 
discretion for the purpose of finding candidates with the highest standard of ability, 
efficiency and integrity. Accordingly, if examination of the list of eligible 
candidates by way of promotion or transfer within the institution reveals that a 
candidate, even if he is the only one, fully meets the requirements of the post at 
issue, that authority is not required to organise an internal competition. 
(see para. 56) 
See: 135/87 Vlacliou v Court of Auditors [1988] ECR 2901, para. 23 
4. The concept of misuse of powers applies to cases where an administrative 
authority has used its powers for a purpose other than that for which they were 
conferred on it. A decision may be vitiated by misuse of powers only if it appears, 
I-A - 137 
SUMMARY - CASE T-l 11/99 
on the basis of objective, relevant and consistent evidence, to have been taken for 
purposes other than those stated. 
(see para. 64) 
See: T-35/96 Rasmussen v Commission [1997] ECR-SC I-A-61 and II-187, para. 70; 
Séché v Commission, cited above, para. 139 
I-A - 138