62023TJ0569_INF
Judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 22 January 2025 –Stanecki v Commission
(Case T‑569/23)
(Civil service – Officials – Promotion – 2022 promotion exercise – Decision not to promote the applicant to grade AD 9 – Article 45 of the Staff Regulations – Existence of disciplinary proceedings – Presumption of innocence – Impartiality – Freedom of expression – Misuse of powers)
1.
Actions brought by officials – Interest in bringing proceedings – Action brought against a refusal to include in the list of officials eligible for promotion – Admissible only in relation to the applicant’s exclusion
(see paragraphs 15, 16)
2.
Actions brought by officials – Act adversely affecting an official – Concept – Purely informative measure – Not included
(see paragraphs 17, 18)
3.
Officials – Promotion – Consideration of comparative merits – Evidence capable of being taken into consideration – Disciplinary proceedings pending against the person concerned – Whether permissible – Limits – Re-examination of the decision not to promote following the conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings – Possibility of retroactively promoting the person concerned
(Staff Regulations of Officials, Art. 45)
(see paragraphs 42-44, 48)
4.
Officials – Promotion – Consideration of comparative merits – Evidence capable of being taken into consideration – Disciplinary proceedings pending against the person concerned – Whether permissible – Infringement of the presumption of innocence – None – Power of the administration to promote the person concerned, then to demote him or her if the disciplinary proceedings are unsuccessful – Not included
(Staff Regulations of Officials, Arts 4, 6, 45 and 51(1) and Annex IX, Art. 9(e) to (g))
(see paragraphs 45, 50, 51, 56)
5.
Officials – Promotion – Consideration of comparative merits – Procedures – System established by the Commission – Recommendations of the Director-General or the Joint Promotion Committee – Binding nature on the appointing authority – None
(Staff Regulations of Officials, Art. 45)
(see paragraph 57)
Operative part
The Court:
1.
Dismisses the action;
2.
Orders Mr Rafal Stanecki to pay the costs.