JUDGMENT OF THE CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL (Third Chamber)
10 October 2007
Case F-107/06
Michael Berrisford
v
Commission of the European Communities
(Civil service – Officials – Promotion – Promotion year 2005 – Award of promotion points – General implementing provisions for Article 45 of the Staff Regulations)
Application: brought under Articles 236 EC and 152 EA, in which Mr Berrisford seeks, in particular, annulment of the decision not to include
his name in the list of officials promoted to A*13 in the 2005 promotion procedure, as published in Administrative Notice
No 85-2005 of 23 November 2005, together with an order for the Commission to pay him the sum of EUR 25 000 by way of damages.
Held: The decision not to include the applicant in the list of officials promoted to A*13 in the 2005 promotion procedure is annulled.
The remainder of the action is dismissed. The Commission is ordered to pay the costs.
Summary
Officials – Promotion – Consideration of comparative merits
Where the appointing authority considers the comparative merits of candidates for promotion pursuant to Article 45 of the
Staff Regulations, it must examine all the relevant factors in each application carefully and impartially.
The fact that an official has been put forward for promotion, unsuccessfully, in previous promotion procedures constitutes
a factor which must be taken into account. That fact is a relevant aspect of merit, provided that the official concerned has
not lost merit in the interim.
The fact that such factors must be taken into account is confirmed by the general implementing provisions adopted by the Commission
for Article 45 of the Staff Regulations, which provide that promotion must be awarded after comparison of individual merits
assessed over a period of time.
Failure to take into consideration previous proposals for promotion could also lead to different situations being treated
in the same way.
If it proved that the criteria adopted by the Promotion Committee for awarding promotion points prevented that particular
aspect of the merits from being taken into account, it would be the duty of the appointing authority, which is required to
comply with the rules on entitlement to advance to a higher level, to refrain from applying those criteria.
(see paras 67-68, 71-76, 103)
See:
C-269/90 Technische Universität München [1991] ECR I‑5469, para. 14
T-169/89 Frederiksen v Parliament [1991] ECR II‑1403, para. 69; T-30/04 Sena v EASA [2005] ECR-SC I‑A‑113 and II‑519, para. 80; T-132/03 Casini v Commission [2005] ECR-SC I‑A‑253 and II‑1169, para. 69; T-432/04 Parlante v Commission [2007] ECR-SC I-A-2-0000 and II-A-2-0000, para. 97