JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Single Judge)
17 March 2004
Case T-4/03
Giorgio Lebedef
v
Commission of the European Communities
(Officials – Promotion – Irregularity in a promotion procedure – Consideration of comparative merits – Statement of reasons – Application for annulment)
Full text in French II - 0000
Application:         for annulment of the Commission’s decision not to promote the applicant to Grade B 1 in the promotion round for 2001.
Held:         The decision refusing to promote the applicant is annulled. The Commission is ordered to pay the costs.
Summary
1.     Officials – Promotion – Candidates eligible for promotion – Right to promotion – None
(Staff Regulations, Art. 45(1))
2.     Officials – Promotion – Consideration of comparative merits – Rules – Discretion of the administration – Limits – Respect
for principle of equal treatment – Judicial review – Limits
(Staff Regulations, Art. 45(1))
3.     Officials – Promotion – Consideration of comparative merits – Taking into account of staff reports – Taking into account of
a non-final staff report included irregularly and challenged by the official – Not permissible – Taking into account of a
final staff report, despite a subsequent legal challenge to it – Permissible
(Staff Regulations, Art. 45(1))
1.     The Staff Regulations do not confer a right to promotion even for officials who meet all the conditions for promotion.
(see para. 20)
See: T-3/92 Latham v Commission [1994] ECR-SC I-A-23 and II-83, para. 50; T-262/94 Baiwir v Commission [1996] ECR-SC I-A-257 and II-739, para. 67; T-134/02 Tejada Fernández v Commission [2003] ECR-SC I-A-125 and II-609, para. 40
2.     The appointing authority has a wide discretion in assessing the merits to be taken into consideration in a decision on promotion
under Article 45 of the Staff Regulations, and review by the Community judicature is confined to determining whether, having
regard to the various considerations which have influenced the administration in making its assessment, it has remained within
reasonable bounds and has not used its power in a manifestly incorrect way. The Court cannot therefore substitute its assessment
of the qualifications and merits of the candidates for that of the appointing authority.
However, the discretion allowed to the administration is circumscribed by the need to undertake a comparative consideration
of candidatures with care and impartiality, in the interests of the service and in accordance with the principle of equal
treatment. In practice, consideration of the comparative merits of candidatures must be undertaken on a basis of equality,
using comparable sources of information.
Furthermore, it is clear from the wording of the first paragraph of Article 45(1) of the Staff Regulations that, in the context
of a promotions procedure, the appointing authority is required to make its choice on the basis of a comparative examination
of the staff reports and merits of the candidates eligible for promotion. That examination must be carried out with care and
impartiality, in the interests of the service and in accordance with the principle of equal treatment. To that end, it has
a power under the Staff Regulations to undertake that examination in accordance with the procedure or method which it considers
most appropriate.
(see paras 21-22)
See: T-76/92 Tsirimokos v Parliament [1993] ECR II-1281, paras 20 and 21; Baiwir v Commission, para. 66; T-221/96 Manzo-Tafaro v Commission [1998] ECR-SC I-A-115 and II-307, para. 16; T-157/98 Oliveira v Parliament [1999] ECR-SC I-A-163 and II-851, para. 35; Tejada Fernández v Commission, para. 41
3.     The periodic report constitutes an indispensable criterion of assessment each time an official’s career is taken into consideration
with a view to a decision concerning his promotion. A report irregularly included in a personal file after it has been challenged
by the official is among the information on the merits of candidates for promotion which may not legitimately be taken into
account by the promotions committee in lieu of the staff report.
The situation is different where the staff report, although the subject of a subsequent appeal, was to be regarded as final
under the general rules for the implementation of Article 43 of the Staff Regulations in the institution concerned.
(see paras 30-31)
See: 156/79 and 51/80 Gratreau v Commission [1980] ECR 3943, para. 22; T-144/95 Michaël v Commission [1996] ECR-SC I-A-529 and II-1429, para. 52; T-82/98 Jacobs v Commission [2000] ECR-SC I-A-39 and II-169, paras 34 and 39