JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Fourth Chamber)
21 January 2004
Case T-328/01
Tony Robinson
v
European Parliament
(Temporary staff — Promotion to Grade A 3 — Staff of the Parliamentary Group of the European Socialist Parties)
Full text in French II - 0000
Application:         firstly, for annulment of the decision taken at the meeting of the Bureau of the ESP Parliamentary Group on 6 and 7 March
2001 appointing two persons to Grade A 3 and, secondly, for compensation in respect of the harm suffered by the applicant
as a result of the promotion.
Held:         The decision of the Bureau of the Parliamentary Group of the European Socialist Parties, adopted at its meeting on 6 and 7 March
2001, promoting Ms F. and Mr M. to Grade A 3 with effect from 1 March 2001 is annulled. The Parliament is ordered to pay the
costs.
Summary
1.     Officials – Actions – Interest in bringing proceedings – Action against the decision to promote another official – Admissibility
(Staff Regulations, Art. 91)
2.     Acts of the institutions – Internal directives – Legal effects
3.     Officials – Members of the temporary staff – Recruitment – Discretion of the authority authorised to conclude contracts of
engagement – Limits – Respect for the conditions set by the call for applications
(Staff Regulations, Art. 45(1))
4.     Officials – Members of the temporary staff – Promotion – Consideration of the comparative merits – Discretion of the administration
– Limits – Internal directive of an institution
(Staff Regulations, Art. 45(1); Internal rules of the European Parliament on the recruitment of officials and other servants
and movement from one category or service to another, Art. 10, first sentence)
5.     Officials – Appeals – Action for compensation – Annulment of the contested unlawful act – Adequate compensation for non-pecuniary
damage
(Staff Regulations, Art. 91)
1.     While it is true that a member of staff cannot claim a right to be promoted, he nevertheless has an interest in disputing
a decision to promote another member of staff to a grade for which he is eligible to apply, against which he lodged a complaint
which was rejected by the authority authorised to conclude contracts of engagement.
(see para. 32)
2.     The institutions are obliged to respect internal directives which they have voluntarily adopted, from which they cannot depart
without stating their reasons for doing so, as they would otherwise infringe the principle of equal treatment.
(see para. 50)
See: 190/82 Blomefield v Commission [1983] ECR 3981, para. 20; T-92/96 Monaco v Parliament [1997] ECR-SC I-A-195 and II-573, para. 46; T-123/95 B v Parliament [1997] ECR-SC I-A-245 and II-697, para. 17
3.     Just as a vacancy notice is intended to establish the legal framework within which the appointing authority will undertake
consideration of the comparative merits of the candidates, provided for in Article 45(1) of the Staff Regulations, the conditions
laid down in a call for applications by the authority authorised to conclude contracts of engagement are binding upon that
authority.
(see para. 55)
See: T-95/01 Coget and Others v Court of Auditors [2001] ECR-SC I-A-91 and II-879, para. 58; T-135/00 Morello v Commission [2002] ECR-SC I-A-265 and II-1313, para. 64; T-73/01 Pappas v Committee of the Regions [2003] ECR-SC I-A-207 and II-1011, para. 54
4.     Notwithstanding the fact that the authority authorised to conclude contracts of engagement has a very broad discretion when
comparing the merits of candidates, it may not ignore the rules which the institution has imposed upon itself, such as the
rule requiring the staff reports of members of the temporary staff to be examined in accordance with the first sentence of
Article 10 of the European Parliament’s internal rules on the recruitment of officials and other servants and movement from
one category or service to another, which refers to Article 45(1) of the Staff Regulations.
(see para. 73)
See  T-262/94 Baiwir v Commission [1996] ECR-SC I-A-257 and II-739, para. 66, and the case-law cited
5.     The annulment of an act which has been challenged in itself constitutes appropriate and, as a rule, sufficient reparation
for any non-material harm which the applicant may have suffered, particularly in the absence of any negative assessment in
the contested decision of the applicant’s abilities likely to cause him damage.
(see para. 79)
See: C-343/87 Culin v Commission [1990] ECR I-225, paras 25 to 29; T-37/89 Hanning v Parliament [1990] ECR II-463, para. 83; T-60/94 Pierrat v Court of Justice [1995] ECR-SC I-A-23 and II-77, para. 62; T-282/97 and T-57/98 Giannini v Commission [1999] ECR-SC I-A-33 and II-151, para. 40