62018TJ0081_INF
Judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 2 April 2020 –Barata v Parliament
(Case T‑81/18)
(Civil service — Officials — Promotion — Certification procedure — 2016 promotion exercise — Exclusion of the applicant from the final list of officials authorised to take part in the training programme — Article 45a of the Staff Regulations — Obligation to state reasons — Manifest error of assessment — Equal treatment — Rights of the defence)
1.
Actions brought by officials — Act adversely affecting an official — Definition — Preparatory act — Letters informing an applicant of the progress of a selection procedure — Not included
(Staff Regulations of Officials, Arts 90(2) and 91(1))
(see paras 22, 23, 25, 26, 29-31)
2.
Actions brought by officials — Act adversely affecting an official — Definition — Preparatory act — Opinion of the joint certification committee proposing that an action brought by a candidate against the outcome of a selection procedure be dismissed — Not included
(Staff Regulations of Officials, Arts 90(2) and 91(1))
(see para. 28)
3.
Judicial proceedings — Application initiating proceedings — Formal requirements — Identification of the subject matter of the dispute — Brief summary of the pleas in law on which the application is based — Application not sufficiently clear and precise — Inadmissibility
(Staff Regulations of Officials, Arts 21, first para. and 53, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 76(d))
(see paras 33, 52, 53, 59, 60)
4.
Actions brought by officials — Prior administrative complaint — Correspondence between the complaint and the application — Same subject matter and legal basis — Submissions and arguments not made in the complaint but closely related to it — Admissibility
(Staff Regulations of Officials, Arts 90 and 91)
(see paras 34-38, 54)
5.
Actions brought by officials — Plea alleging lack of competence on the part of the body which adopted the act adversely affecting the official — Argument based on public policy
(Art. 263 TFEU)
(see para. 51)
6.
Actions brought by officials — Action against a decision rejecting a complaint — Admissibility — Obligation to rule on pleas directed against the decision rejecting the complaint — Pleas devoid of independent content or purely confirmatory decision — None
(Staff Regulations of Officials, Arts 90 and 91)
(see paras 61, 62)
7.
Officials — Certification procedure — Complaint of a candidate not selected — Rejection decision — Obligation to state reasons at the latest at the stage of rejection of the complaint — Scope
(Staff Regulations of Officials, Arts 25, 45 and 90(2))
(see paras 67-70)
8.
Actions brought by officials — Prior administrative procedure — Failure by the administration to observe the deadlines for responding — Consequences
(Staff Regulations of Officials, Arts 90 and 91(3))
(see paras 83, 84, 87)
9.
Officials — Certification procedure — Consideration of comparative merits — Administration’s discretion — Judicial review — Limits
(Staff Regulations of Officials, Art. 45a)
(see paras 89, 90, 98)
10.
Officials — Principles — Rights of defence — Obligation to hear the person concerned before adopting a measure adversely affecting him — Scope — Decision rejecting the complaint — Not included
(Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 41(1); Staff Regulations of Officials, Art. 90(2))
(see paras 108, 109)
11.
Actions brought by officials — Application for damages linked to an application for annulment — Dismissal of claim for annulment leading to dismissal of the claim for compensation
(Staff Regulations of Officials, Arts 90 and 91)
(see paras 121, 123)
Re:
Application pursuant to Article 270 TFEU seeking annulment, first, of the decision of 30 October 2017 by which the Parliament rejected the applicant’s complaint, secondly, the letter of 20 March 2017 containing the opinion of the Joint Certification Procedure Committee recommending that the appointing authority reject the applicant’s appeal, thirdly, the letter of 14 February 2017 notifying him of his results and informing him that a draft list of seven officials selected to take part in the training programme had been drawn up, fourthly, the letter of 8 December 2016 informing the applicant of his results following the first stage of the 2016 certification procedure, fifthly, the letter of 21 December 2016 informing the applicant of the action taken following his request for review and, sixthly, the notice of internal competition 2016/014 of 7 October 2016 communicated to staff on 20 October 2016 and the full draft list of officials admitted for participation in the resulting training programme.
Operative part
The Court:
1.
Dismisses the action;
2.
Orders Mr João Miguel Barata to pay the costs.