Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2003:27
Date: 2003-02-06
Based on: Merger Treaty (1965)
Subject matter: Staff regulations and employment conditions - EC
Concepts: Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Communities;Pleas in law;Personal file
Procedure: Staff cases - unfounded

Summary 
1. Officials - Temporary staff - Recruitment - Renewal of a fixed-term contract 
for a term less than the maximum allowed by the contract - Obligation to state 
reasons - None 
(Conditions of Employment of Other Servants, Arts 8 and 47(1)) 
I-A - 37 
SUMMARY — CASE T-7/01 
2. Officials - Temporary staff - Recruitment - Renewal of a fixed-term contract 
- Discretion of the appointing authority - Administration's duty to have regard for 
welfare of staff - Account to be taken of the interests of the employee concerned -
Judicial review - Limits 
(Staff Regulations, Art. 7; Conditions of Employment of Other Servants, Art. 10) 
3. Officials - Decision affecting the administrative status of an official - Account 
to be taken of information not contained in his personal file - Not permissible -
Limits 
(Staff Regulations, Art. 26) 
4. Officials - Actions - Pleas in law - Misuse of power - Concept 
1. According to Article 47(1) (a) and (b) of the Conditions of Employment of Other 
Servants the duration of the employment relationship between an institution and a 
member of the temporary staff engaged for a fixed period is governed, within the 
limits laid down by Article 8 of those Conditions of Employment, by the conditions 
set out in the contract concluded between the parties. Where a fixed-term 
employment contract does not entitle the member of the temporary staff to a renewal 
of that contract, the appointing authority is not required, having regard to the very 
wide discretion it enjoys, to state reasons for a measure by which it decides, in 
compliance with the period of notice specified in the contract and in Article 47(1) (b) 
of the Conditions of Employment, and also, where appropriate, in the internal rules 
of the institution in question, not to renew that contract when it expires, or to renew 
it only for a term less than the maximum allowed under the contract. 
(see paras 38-40) 
See: T-330/00 and T-114/01 Cocchi and Hainz v Commission [2002] ECR-SC I-A-193 
and II-987, para. 83 
I-A - 38 
PYRES v COMMISSION 
2. The renewal of the fixed-term contract of a member of the temporary staff falls 
within the scope of a wide discretion of the competent authority, so that review by 
the Community judicature must be confined to ascertaining that there was no 
manifest error or misuse of powers. 
As regards that authority's evaluation of the interests of the service, which, in 
accordance with the administration's duty to have regard for the welfare of staff, 
also requires account to be taken of the interests of the official concerned, review 
by the Community judicature must be confined to the question whether the authority 
remained within reasonable limits and did not use its discretion in a manifestly 
wrong way. 
(see paras 50-51) 
See: 25/80De Briey v Commission [1981] ECR 637, para. 7; C-298/93 P Klinke v Court 
of Justice [1994] ECR I-3009, para. 38; T-45/90 Speybrouck v Parliament [1992] ECR 
II-33, paras. 97 and 98; T-51/91 Hoyer v Commission [1994] ECR-SC I-A-103 and 
II-341, para. 27; T-52/91 Smets v Commission [1994] ECR-SC I-A-107 and II-353, para. 
24; T-13195 Kyrpitsis v ESC [1996] ECR-SC I-A-167 and II-503, para. 52; T-123/95 B 
v Parliament [1997] ECR-SC I-A-245 and II-697, para. 70; T-79/98 Carrasco Benitez v 
EMEA [1999] ECR-SC I-A-29 and II-127. para. 55; T-223/99 Dejaiffe v OUIM [2000] 
ECR-SC I-A-277 and II-1267, para. 53 
3. Article 26 of the Staff Regulations, which provides that an official' s personal file 
is to contain all documents relating to his administrative status and all reports 
relating to his ability, efficiency and conduct, together with any comments by the 
official on such documents, is intended to guarantee an official's right to a fair 
hearing by ensuring that decisions taken by the appointing authority affecting his 
administrative status and his career are not based on matters concerning his conduct 
which are not included in his personal file. Consequently, a decision based on such 
matters is contrary to the guarantees contained in the Staff Regulations and must be 
annulled because it was adopted on the basis of a procedure vitiated by illegality. 
Nevertheless, the fact that the personal file of the official concerned does not contain 
I-A - 39 
SUMMARY - CASE T-7/01 
information on which a decision of the administration is based can vitiate that 
decision only if that information had a decisive influence on the choice made by the 
appointing authority. 
(see paras 70-71) 
See: 21/70 Rittweger [1971] ECR 7, paras 29 to 41 ; 88/71 Brasseur v Parliament [1972] 
ECR 499, para. 18; 233/85 Bonino v Commission [1987] ECR 739, para. 11; T-78/92 
Perakis v Parliament [1993] ECR II-1299, para. 27; T-109/92 Lacruz Bassols v Court 
of Justice [1994] ECR-SC I-A-31 and II-105, para. 68 
4. The concept of misuse of powers has a precise scope which refers to the use of 
its powers by an administrative authority for a purpose other than that for which 
they were conferred upon it. A decision is vitiated by misuse of powers only if it 
appears on the basis of objective, relevant and consistent evidence to have been 
taken with the purpose of achieving an end other than that stated. 
(see para. 82) 
See: T-118/95 Anacoreta Correia v Commission [1996] ECR-SC I-A-283 and II-835, 
para. 25; T-112/96 and T-115/96 Séché v Commission [1999] ECR-SC I-A-115 and 
II-623, para. 139; T-97/99 and T-99/99 Charnier and O'Hannrachain v Parliament [2001] 
ECR-SC I-A-1 and II-1, para. 104 
I-A - 40