Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2001:161
Date: 2001-06-14
Based on: Merger Treaty (1965)
Subject matter: Staff regulations and employment conditions - EC
Concepts: Promotion;Vacancy notice
Procedure: Staff cases - unfounded;Staff cases - successful

SUMMARY - CASE T-230/99 
Summary 
1. Officials - Vacancy notice - Consideration of comparative merits -
Compliance with the conditions set out in the vacancy notice - Judicial review -
Scope 
(Staff Regulations, Art. 7) 
2. Officials - Promotion - Complaint by an unsuccessful candidate - Decision 
rejecting complaint - Statement of grounds - Scope 
(Staff Regulations, Arts 25, second para., 45 and 90(2)) 
1. For the purpose of verifying whether the appointing authority has made a 
manifest error of assessment in appraising the merits of the candidates for a vacant 
post in the light of the requirements arising from the vacancy notice, it is not for the 
Court to substitute its own assessment for that of the appointing authority, but to 
establish whether, regard being had to the considerations which may have influenced 
the administration in making its assessment, the latter remained within reasonable 
bounds and did not use its power in a manifestly incorrect manner. 
(see para. 33) 
See: 282/81 Ragusa v Commission [1983] ECR 1245, para. 9; T-220/99 Behmer v 
Parliament [2000] ECR-SC I-A-187 and II-851, para. 32 
I-A - 128 
MCAULEY v COUNCIL 
2. The appointing authority is not obliged to issue statements of grounds for 
promotion decisions, either to the addressees of those decisions, who cannot be 
adversely affected by them, or to the unsuccessful candidates, who might be harmed 
by such a statements of grounds. 
However, although the appointing authority is not obliged to provide a statement of 
grounds for promotion decisions, it is obliged to provide a statement of grounds for 
its decision rejecting a complaint lodged under Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations 
by a candidate who is not promoted, the grounds for that adverse decision being 
deemed to be the same as those for the decision against which the complaint was 
directed. 
That obligation to state, at least at the stage of rejecting the complaint, the grounds 
on which a contested promotion decision is based is intended, on the one hand, to 
provide the official concerned with sufficient information to determine whether the 
act adversely affecting him is well founded and whether it is appropriate to bring 
legal proceedings before the Court and, on the other, to enable the Court to review 
the legality of that decision. Since promotion is by selection, the statement of 
grounds for the rejection of the complaint must deal only with the satisfaction of the 
legal conditions which under the Staff Regulations govern the regularity of the 
procedure. In particular, the appointing authority is not obliged to give the candidate 
who is not selected details of the comparison of his merits and those of the candidate 
who is promoted or to set out in detail in what way it considered that the appointed 
candidate fulfilled the conditions in the vacancy notice. It is sufficient that, in its 
decision rejecting the complaint, the appointing authority inform the official 
concerned of the relevant individual ground for the rejection of his candidature. 
(see paras 50-52) 
I-A - 129 
SUMMARY — CASE T-230/99 
See: 188/73 Grassi v Council [1974] ECR 1099, paras 11 and 12; T-25/92 Vela Palacios 
v ESC [1993] ECR II-201, para. 25; C-115/92 P Parliament v Volger [1993] ECR 
I-6549,para. 22; T-6/96 Contargyris v Council [1991] ECR-SC I-A-1 19 and II-357,para. 
148; T-142/95 Delvaux v Commission [1997] ECR-SC I-A-477 and II-1247, para. 84; 
T-3/97 Campogrande v Commission [1998] ECR-SC I-A-89 and II-215, para. 112; 
T-157/98 Oliveira v Parliament [1999] ECR-SC I-A-163 and II-851, para. 52 
I-A - 130