Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2009:390
Date: 2009-10-06
Language of the case: French
Court formation: Appeals Chamber
Based on: Merger Treaty (1965)
Subject matter: Staff regulations and employment conditions - EC
Concepts: Discretion of the reporting officer;Sufficient compensation provided by annulment of the act
Procedure: Appeal;Staff cases

Summary 1. Officials – Reports procedure – Career development report – Justified absences (Staff Regulations, Art. 43) 2. Officials – Actions – Actions for damages – Annulment of the illegal act in dispute – Whether appropriate reparation for non-material damage (Staff Regulations, Art. 91) 1. While an official’s justified absences cannot penalise him in the context of his assessment, his mark for efficiency may be increased to take account of the conditions in which he performed his duties despite having had less actual working time as a result of his absence. However, that factor is not automatically taken into account in the efficiency part of the overall mark, since it is merely an option for those drawing up the career development report, who must consider that possibility where circumstances warrant it. In circumstances where the reporting officer and the countersigning officer have no reason to think that an official’s justified absences may have had a significant effect on his efficiency during the period covered by a career development report, they cannot be criticised for not having mentioned that fact or taken it into account in the comments on efficiency in the career development report. (see paras 29, 39-40) See: T‑277/03 Vlachaki v Commission [2005] ECR-SC I‑A‑57 and II‑243, para. 83 and the case-law cited therein 2. The annulment of an act of the administration which has been challenged by an official in itself constitutes appropriate and, in principle, sufficient reparation for any non-material harm where that act does not contain an explicitly negative assessment of the applicant’s abilities capable of injuring him. (see para. 47) See: T‑155/03, T‑157/03 and T‑331/03 Cwik v Commission [2005] ECR-SC I‑A‑411 and II‑1865, para. 205 and the case-law cited therein