Judgment — ECLI:EU:F:2013:156
Date: 2013-10-23
Language of the case: French
Court formation: Single Judge
Based on: Merger Treaty (1965)
Subject matter: Staff regulations and employment conditions - EC
Procedure: Staff cases - successful

Summary Officials — Promotion — Complaint by a candidate who has not been promoted — Rejection decision — Obligation to state reasons — Scope — General and stereotypical statement of reasons equivalent to a complete absence of a statement of reasons (Staff Regulations, Arts 25, 45 and 90(2)) Although the appointing authority is not obliged to give reasons for its promotion decisions to officials who have not been promoted, it is obliged to state the reasons for its decision rejecting a complaint lodged pursuant to Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations by an official who has not been promoted, the statement of reasons for that decision being deemed to be the same as the statement of reasons against which the complaint was directed. Furthermore, the appointing authority cannot be expected, when rejecting a complaint, to provide reasons for its decision which go further than the claims relied on in that complaint, in particular by explaining why the merits of each of the officials eligible for promotion were greater than those of the author of the complaint. Since promotions are made by selection, in accordance with Article 45 of the Staff Regulations, it is enough that the reasons given for the rejection of the complaint relate to the application of the conditions governing promotion laid down by law and the Staff Regulations to the official’s individual situation. A general and stereotypical statement of reasons for a decision rejecting a complaint which does not contain any information concerning the specific situation of the person concerned and, in particular, which gives no explanation of how the appointing authority applied the criteria laid down in Article 45 of the Staff Regulations to his individual situation is equivalent, in reality, to a complete absence of a statement of reasons. (see paras 29-32) See: 20 February 2002, T‑117/01 Roman Parra v Commission, paras 27 and 31; 29 September 2005, T‑218/02 Napoli Buzzanca v Commission, para. 74 28 September 2011, F‑9/10 AC v Council, para. 29; 10 November 2011, F‑18/09 Merhzaoui v Council, paras 71 and 75; 8 February 2012, F‑11/11 Bouillez and Others v Council, para. 22; 14 November 2012, F‑75/11 Bouillez v Council, para. 26