Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2002:155
Date: 2002-06-12
Based on: Merger Treaty (1965)
Subject matter: Staff regulations and employment conditions - EC
Concepts: Reports;Conditions of admissibility;Scope of judicial review
Procedure: Staff cases - unfounded;Staff cases - inadmissible

SUMMARY - CASE T-187/01 
Held: The application is dismissed. The parties are to bear their 
own costs. 
Summary 
1. Officials — Actions — Subject-matter — Direction to the administration — 
Inadmissibility 
(Staff Regulations, Art. 91) 
2. Officials - Reports procedure - Staff report - Change in the assessments 
compared with previous report - Obligation to state reasons — Scope 
(Staff Regulations, Art. 43) 
3. Officials - Reports procedure - Staff report - Description of the duties of the 
official assessed - Principal administrator who has performed the functions of an 
assistant head of unit 
(Staff Regulations, Art. 43) 
4. Officials - Reports procedure - Staff report - Judicial review - Limits 
(Staff Regulations, Art. 43) 
5. Officials - Actions - Action for damages - Origin - Employment relationship 
- Legal basis 
(Art. 236 EC; Staff Regulations, Arts 90 and 91) 
I-A - 82 
MELLONE v COMMISSION 
6. Officials - Reports procedure - Staff report - Drawing up - Delay -
Administrative fault 
(Staff Regulations, Art. 43) 
1. It is not for the Community judicature to issue directions to the administration or 
to make declaratory rulings in the context of a review of legality under Article 91 
of the Staff Regulations. 
An applicant who requests the Court to declare that his staff report has not been 
definitively drawn up and must not be included in his personal file, but removed 
from it, is putting forward a claim for a declaratory ruling to be made against, or 
for a direction to be issued to, the administration. 
(see paras 16-17) 
See: T-21/95 and T-186/95 Mazzocchi-Alemanni v Commission [1996] ECR-SC I-A-501 
and II-1377, para. 44 
2. The administration is obliged to state in a sufficient and detailed manner the 
reasons on which the staff report is based and to give the person concerned an 
opportunity to make observations on those reasons, compliance with those 
requirements being all the more important where the assessment shows a decline 
compared with the previous report. Assessments which indicate, having regard to 
his grade, that the official did not demonstrate the adaptability, flexibility and 
creative approach required for the area of work covered by the unit to which he was 
assigned and for the functions of an assistant head of unit which he was effectively 
performing in that unit, and that his participation in the work of the unit suffered 
as a result of an attitude considered too hierarchical to be consistent with the unit's 
working methods, are sufficiently specific and substantiated to satisfy the obligation 
to state reasons. 
I-A - 83 
SUMMARY - CASE T-187/01 
Since the staff report contains a sufficient statement of reasons, the appeal assessor 
cannot be required to provide further explanations of the reasons which led him not 
to follow the recommendations of the Joint Committee on Staff Reports unless that 
advisory body's opinion mentions special circumstances likely to cast doubt on the 
validity or proper foundation of the original assessment and therefore calls for a 
specific assessment from the appeal assessor as to any appropriate conclusions to be 
drawn from those circumstances. 
(see paras 27, 30-31, 33) 
See: 173/82, 157/83 and 186/84 Castille v Commission [1986] ECR 497, para. 27; 
T-1/91 Della Pietra v Commission [1992] ECR II-2145, paras 30 and 32; T-212/97 
Hubert v Commission [1999] ECR-SC I-A-41 and II-185, para. 79 
3. The staff report of a principal administrator who has been performing the 
functions of an assistant head of unit, which, in addition to the tasks for which the 
latter was specifically responsible, also mentions the general tasks of the unit in 
question, does not misrepresent the responsibilities of the official assessed. Having 
regard to that official's grade and hierarchical status, the administration was entitled 
to expect him not only to perform his specific tasks but, in addition, to participate 
in the various tasks for which the unit was responsible and to oversee their 
performance by the officials and other staff working under his control. 
(see paras 46-47) 
4. Assessors enjoy a very wide discretion when judging the work of persons upon 
whom they must report. It is not for the Court, save in the case of manifest errors 
as to the facts or misuse of powers, to review the merits of the assessment made by 
the administration of the occupational abilities of an official, where it involves 
I-A - 84 
MELLONE v COMMISSION 
complex value-judgments which, by their very nature, are not amenable to objective 
verification. 
(see para. 51) 
See: 36/81, 37/81 and 218/81 Seton v Commission [1983] ECR 1789, para. 23; T-212/97 
Hubert v Commission [1999] ECR-SC I-A-41 and II-185, para. 142 
5. Where it originates in the employment relationship between the person concerned 
and the institution, a dispute between an official and the institution which employs 
or employed him concerning compensation for damage must be considered under 
Article 236 EC and Articles 90 and 91 of the Staff Regulations and, as regards in 
particular the question of admissibility, lies outside the sphere of application of 
Articles 235 EC and 288 EC. 
(see para. 74) 
See: 9/75 Meyer-Burckhardt v Commission [1975] ECR 1171, para. 7; T-177/94 and 
T-377/94 Altmann and Others v Commission [1996] ECR II-2041, para. 149 
6. The administration must ensure that staff reports are drawn up periodically on the 
dates laid down by the Staff Regulations and that they are drawn up in a proper 
form, both for reasons of sound administration and in order to safeguard the 
interests of officials. The administration has a reasonable period at its disposal and 
any failure to act within that period must be justified by the existence of special 
circumstances. A delay in the drawing up of a staff report may in itself be 
prejudicial to the official for the simple reason that his career progress may be 
affected by the absence of such a report at a time when decisions concerning him 
must be taken. In the absence of special circumstances justifying the delays found 
I-A - 85 
SUMMARY - CASE T-187/01 
to have occurred, the administration commits an administrative fault giving rise to 
liability on its part. 
(see paras 77-78) 
See: 156/79 and 51/80 Gratreau v Commission [1980] ECR 3943, para. 15; T-59/96 
Burban v Parliament [1997] ECR-SC I-A-109 and II-331, para. 44 
I-A - 86