Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2001:75
Date: 2001-03-06
Language of the case: French
Court formation: Fifth Chamber
Based on: Merger Treaty (1965)
Subject matter: Staff regulations and employment conditions - EC
Concepts: Organization of departments;General;Plea alleging misuse of powers
Procedure: Staff cases - unfounded;Staff cases - inadmissible

SUMMARY — CASE T-100/00 
Summary 
1. Officials - Transfer - Reassignment - Distinguishing criteria 
(Staff Regulations, Arts 4 and 29) 
2. Officials - Organisation of departments - Assignment of staff -
Administration 's discretion - Extent - Review by the Court - Limits - Interests 
of the service — Observance of equivalence of posts 
(Staff Regulations, Art. 7) 
3. Officials - Decision adversely affecting an official - Obligation to state reasons 
— Scope 
(Staff Regulations, Art. 25) 
4. Officials - Actions - Pleas in law - Misuse of powers — Definition 
1. There is a transfer in the strict sense of the term only where an official is 
transferred to a vacant post so that any such transfer is subject to the formalities 
prescribed by Articles 4 and 29 of the Staff Regulations. In contrast, those 
formalities do not apply when an official is reassigned because that transfer does not 
give rise to a vacant post. 
(see para. 29) 
See: C-398/93 P Rasmussen v Commission [1994] ECR I-4043, para. 11; T-23/96fle 
Persio v Commission [1998] ECR-SC I-A-483 and II-413, para. 79 
I-A - 72 
CAMPOLI v COMMISSION 
2. The institutions enjoy a broad discretion to organise their departments to suit the 
tasks entrusted to them and to assign staff available to them in the light of such 
tasks, on condition, however, that the staff are assigned in the interests of the 
service and in conformity with the principle that assignment must be to an 
equivalent post. Having regard to the extent of the institutions' discretion in 
evaluating the interests of the service, the review undertaken by this Court must be 
confined to the question whether the appointing authority remained within the 
bounds of that discretion and did not use it in a manifestly wrong way. 
Where they cause tensions prejudicial to the proper functioning of the service, 
internal relationship difficulties may justify the transfer of an official in the interests 
of the service. In such a situation, it is, moreover, irrelevant who was responsible 
for the incidents at issue or even whether the complaints made are well founded. 
(see paras 41, 45) 
See: T-80/92 Turners Commission [1993] ECR II-1465, para. 53; C-294/95 P Ojha v 
Commission [1996] ECR I-5863, paras 41 and 43; T-98/96 Costacurta v Commission 
[1998] ECR-SC I-A-21 and II-49, para. 36 
3. The reasons given for a decision adversely affecting an official are sufficient if 
the measure was adopted in circumstances known to the official concerned which 
enable him to understand its scope. 
(see para. 53) 
See: T-78/96 and T-170/96 W. v Commission [1998] ECR-SC I-A-239 and II-745, para. 
141 
I-A - 73 
SUMMARY — CASE T-100/00 
4. The concept of misuse of powers has a precisely defined scope and refers 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 amount to a misuse of powers 
only if it appears, on the basis of objective, relevant and consistent evidence, to 
have been taken for purposes other than those stated. 
Provided that a decision has not been judged to be contrary to the interests of the 
service, there can be no question of any misuse of power. 
(see paras 62-63) 
See: T-59/91 and T-79/91 Eppe v Commission [1992] ECR II-2061, para. 57; T-118/95 
Anacoreta Correiav Commission [1996] ECR-SCI-A-283 and II-835,para. 25; T-112/96 
and T-115/96 Séché v Commission [1999] ECR-SC I-A-115 and II-623, para. 139 
I-A - 74