Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2000:211
Date: 2000-09-19
Language of the case: French
Court formation: First Chamber
Based on: Merger Treaty (1965)
Subject matter: Staff regulations and employment conditions - EC
Concepts: Assessment of the administration;Procedure for drawing up the staff report/appraisal;Effect of the outcome of the action for annulment;General
Procedure: Staff cases - unfounded;Action for damages - successful

SUMMARY — JOINED CASES T-101/98 AND T-200/98 
Held: The claim for compensation for material damage in Case 
T-200/98 is dismissed as inadmissible. In Case T-200/98 
the Council is ordered to pay the applicant damages of 
BEF 70 000 for the non-material damage sustained by her. 
The action for annulment in Case T-101/98 is dismissed. 
The Council is ordered to bear its own costs and to pay 
one half of the costs incurred by the applicant in Case 
T-200/98. The parties are ordered to bear their own costs 
in Case T-101/98. 
Summary 
1. Officials — Actions - Action for damages — Action intended to circumvent the 
inadmissibility of an action for annulment - Inadmissible 
(Staff Regulations, Arts 90 and 91) 
2. Officials - Reports - Staff reports - Proper drawing up - Obligation of the 
administration 
(Staff Regulations, Art. 43, second para.) 
3. Officials - Promotion — Consideration of comparative merits — Taking into 
consideration of staff reports — Irregularity capable of entailing annulment of the 
promotions procedure — Exception — Belated constitution of the report attributable 
to the official 
(Staff Regulations, Arts 43 and 45) 
I-A - 178 
STODTMEISTER v COUNCIL 
1. Although a party may take action by means of a claim for damages without being 
obliged by any provision of law to seek the annulment of the unlawful measure 
which causes him damage, he may not by this means circumvent the inadmissibility 
of an application alleging the same unlawfulness which has the same financial end 
in view. In particular, an applicant who failed to contest the measures which are 
alleged to have adversely affected him by bringing proceedings to annul them at the 
proper time cannot repair that omission and procure himself further time for 
bringing proceedings by means of a claim for damages. 
(see para. 38.) 
See: 59/65 Schreckenberg v Commission of the EAEC [1966] ECR 543, at 550; T-20/92 
Moat v Commission [1993] ECR II-799, para. 46; T-59/96 Burban v Parliament [1997] 
ECR-SC I-A-109 and II-331, paras 26 and 27 
2. The staff report provided for in the first paragraph of Article 43 of the Staff 
Regulations must be drawn up for the proper administration and rationalisation of 
the Community's services and to protect the interests of officials. One of the 
mandatory duties of the administration is therefore to ensure that reports are drawn 
up periodically on the dates required by the Staff Regulations and that they are 
drawn up in a proper form. 
(see para. 48) 
See: 156/79 Gratreau v Commission [1980] ECR 3943, para. 15; Burban v Parliament, 
cited above, para. 44 
3. A promotion procedure is in principle tainted with irregularity in so far as the 
appointing authority has not been able to consider the comparative merits of the 
candidates because there has been a substantial delay on the part of the 
administration in drawing up the periodic reports of one or more of them. On the 
other hand, an official cannot complain of the delay in drawing up his staff report 
I-A - 179 
SUMMARY - JOINED CASES T-101/98 AND T-200/98 
where that delay is attributable to him, at least in part, or where he has significantly 
contributed to it. 
In that context, the delay in drawing up a staff report owing to the fact that the 
matter has been brought before the Reports Committee cannot be attributed to the 
administration. 
(see paras 67 and 70) 
See: C-68/91 P Moritz v Commission [1992] ECR I-6849, para. 16; T-58/92 Moat v 
Commission [1993] ECR II-1443, para. 59; Burban v Parliament, cited above, para. 45; 
T-15/96 Liao v Council [1997] ECR-SC I-A-329 and II-897, para. 33 
I-A - 180