Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2002:35
Date: 2002-02-20
Based on: Merger Treaty (1965)
Subject matter: Staff regulations and employment conditions - EC
Concepts: Promotion
Procedure: Staff cases - successful

SUMMARY - CASE T-117/01 
Summary 
Officials - Promotion - Complaint by a candidate who has not been promoted — 
Implied decision rejecting it — Complete absence of statement of grounds — 
Regularisation during the procedure before the Court - Not permissible 
(Staff Regulations, Arts 25, second para., and 90(3)) 
Although the appointing authority is not obliged to give reasons for a promotion 
decision, either to the person promoted or to the candidates who have not been 
promoted, it is obliged to state the grounds for its decision rejecting a complaint 
lodged pursuant to Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations by a candidate who has not 
been promoted. Where an implied rejection of the complaint amounts to total 
absence of a statement of grounds, since no information constituting a statement of 
grounds of some kind is available to the applicant before his action is brought, that 
absence cannot be remedied by explanations provided during the proceedings on the 
action. 
(see paras 25, 30-32) 
See: 111/86 Delauche v Commission [1987] ECR 5345, para. 13; C-343/87 Culin v 
Commission [1990] ECR I-225, paras 13 and 15; T-52/90 Volger v Parliament [1992] 
ECR II-121, para. 40; T-16/94 Benecos v Commission [1995] ECR-SC I-A-103 and 
II-335,para. 36; T-283/97 Thinus v Commission [1999] ECR-SCI-A-69 and II-353, paras 
78 to 83; T-112/96 and T-115/96 Séché v Commission [1999] ECR-SC I-A-115 and 
II-623, para. 76 
I-A - 28