Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2003:77
Date: 2003-03-19
Based on: Merger Treaty (1965)
Subject matter: Staff regulations and employment conditions - EC
Concepts: Promotion;Act adversely affecting the official
Procedure: Staff cases - inadmissible;Staff cases - successful

SUMMARY - JOINED CASES T-188/01, T-189/01 AND T-190/01 
Summary 
1. Officials - Actions - Act adversely affecting an official - Definition -
Decision drawing up the list of officials promoted 
(Staff Regulations, Arts 90(2) and 91) 
2. Officials - Promotion - Decision drawing up the list of officials promoted -
Publication - Rules - Availability on the institution's internal computer network 
3. Officials - Promotion - Consideration of comparative merits - Rules -
Discretion of the administration - Need for the Promotion Committee to consider 
all officials eligible for promotion in the institution, even though prior consideration 
within the various administrative units is permissible 
(Staff Regulations, Art. 45(1), first para.) 
1. In the case of acts or decisions drawn up in a procedure involving several stages, 
and particularly at the end of an internal procedure, it is only those measures which 
definitively determine the position of the institution upon the conclusion of that 
procedure which are open to challenge and not intermediate measures whose 
purpose is to prepare for the final decision. 
In the case of the promotions procedure, it is the list of officials promoted which 
constitutes the act that is open to challenge. It is on publication of that list that the 
officials who considered themselves eligible for promotion learn, in a manner which 
is final and not open to doubt, of the assessment of their respective merits, and that 
their legal position is affected. 
I-A - 96 
TSARNAVAS v COMMISSION 
It follows that, in a case where an official disputes the list of officials put forward 
for promotion, the Promotion Committee's decision not to uphold his objection, 
even if it may have some influence on the promotion decision, constitutes a 
preparatory act which does not adversely affect an official within the meaning of 
Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations. Nor is the official concerned adversely 
affected by the letter in which the chairman of the Promotion Committee informs 
him, after the list of officials promoted has been published, of the Committee's 
decision not to uphold his objection. 
(see paras 72-73, 78, 80) 
See: T-17/90, T-28/91 and T-17/92 Camara Alloisio and Others v Commission [1993] 
ECR II-841, para. 39; T-144/95 Michael v Commission [1996] ECR-SC I-A-529 and 
II-1429, para. 30; T-187/98 Cubero Vermurie v Commission [2000] ECR-SC I-A-195 and 
II-885, para. 28 
2. Making available to officials on the institution's internal computer network 
information on the adoption of a measure of general application, such as that 
relating to the list of officials promoted, must, as administrative practice now stands, 
be deemed to constitute 'publication' of that measure as provided for in the Staff 
Regulations, in respect of officials who have direct and easy access to that network 
at their workstations. 
(see para. 83) 
3. It is clear from the wording of the first paragraph of Article 45(1) of the Staff 
Regulations that, in the context of a promotions procedure, the appointing authority 
is required to make its choice on the basis of a comparative examination of the staff 
reports and merits of the candidates eligible for promotion. That examination must 
be carried out with care and impartiality, in the interests of the service and in 
accordance with the principle of equal treatment. To that end, it has a power under 
the Staff Regulations to undertake that examination in accordance with the procedure 
I-A - 97 
SUMMARY - JOINED CASES T-188/01, T-189/01 AND T-190/01 
or method which it considers most appropriate. Nevertheless, prior consideration 
within each Directorate-General of the personal files of officials eligible for 
promotion cannot take the place of the comparative examination of all officials 
eligible for promotion to the same grade which the Promotion Committee must carry 
out. 
That requirement for consideration of the merits of all officials eligible for 
promotion reflects both the principle of equal treatment of officials and the principle 
that officials should have reasonable career prospects. A comparative examination 
restricted only to officials who are eligible for promotion within one 
Directorate-General would infringe those principles, since it might mean that, even 
though he has greater merits than those of colleagues in another 
Directorate-General, an official is not promoted whereas they are, because the fact 
that there were more meritorious officials than he in his Directorate-General meant 
that he was not put forward for promotion by that Directorate-General. 
(see paras 97-100, 121-122) 
See: 62/75 de Wind v Commission [1976] ECR 1167, para. 17; T-76/92 Tsirimokos v 
Parliament [1993] ECR II-1281, paras 20 and 21; T-557/93 Rasmussen v Commission 
[1995] ECR-SC I-A-195 and II-603, paras 20 and 21; T-130/95 X v Commission [1996] 
ECR-SC I-A-603 and II-609, para. 67; T-234/97 Rasmussen v Commission [1998] 
ECR-SC I-A-507 and II-1533, para. 24; T-157/98 Oliveira v Parliament [1999] ECR-SC 
I-A-163 and II-851, para. 35; Cubero Vermurie v Commission, cited above, para. 61 and, 
in support of this, para. 84 
I-A - 98