Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2002:194
Date: 2002-07-11
Based on: Merger Treaty (1965)
Subject matter: Staff regulations and employment conditions - EC
Concepts: Inter-institutional transfer;Individual decisions
Procedure: Staff cases - successful

SUMMARY - CASE T-263/01 
Summary 
1. Officials - Recruitment - Appointment in grade - Appointment to the higher 
grade in the career bracket - Discretion of the appointing authority — Limits -
Obligation, in certain cases, to consider the possibility of making such an 
appointment 
(Staff Regulations, Art. 31(2)) 
2. Officials - Decision adversely affecting an official - Obligation to state grounds 
— Not fulfilled - Régularisation after the commencement of proceedings - Not 
permissible 
(Staff Regulations, Art. 25, second para.) 
1. Although the appointing authority is not, as a general rule, required to examine 
in each case whether it is appropriate to apply Article 31(2) of the Staff Regulations, 
which allows recruitment at the higher grade in the career bracket, or to state 
grounds for a decision not to make use of that provision, it is nevertheless obliged, 
in special circumstances, such as where a candidate has exceptional qualifications, 
specifically to assess the possible application of that provision. Such an obligation 
arises in particular where the specific needs of the department require the 
recruitment of a specially qualified official, and therefore justify resort to 
Article 31(2) of the Staff Regulations, or where the person recruited possesses 
exceptional qualifications and requests the application of those provisions. 
(see para. 20) 
See: T-17795 Alexopoulou v Commission [1995] ECR-SC I-A-227 and II-683, paras 20 
and 21; T-12/97 Barnett v Commission [1997] ECR-SC I-A-313 and II-863, paras 48, 49 
and 52 
I-A - 136 
MAVROMICHALIS v COMMISSION 
2. The total absence of a statement of grounds for the implied rejection of a 
complaint itself directed against a decision which is not reasoned cannot be remedied 
by explanations provided by the appointing authority after proceedings have been 
commenced. A reasoned reply at that stage would no longer fulfil its purpose as 
regards either the person concerned or the Court. The commencement of 
proceedings accordingly puts an end to the possibility ofthat authority's regularising 
its decision by a reasoned reply rejecting the complaint. 
(see para. 27) 
See: T-52/90 Volger v Parliament [1992] ECR II-121, para. 40, confirmed in C-115/92 P 
Parliament v Volger [1993] ECR I-6549, para. 23; T-351/99 Brumter v Commission 
[2001] ECR-SC I-A-165 and II-757, para. 33 
I-A - 137