JUDGMENT OF THE CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL (Third Chamber)
8 October 2008
Case F-44/07
Florence Barbin
v
European Parliament
(Civil service – Officials – Promotion – Procedure for the allocation of merit points in the European Parliament – Illegality of the instructions governing that procedure – Examination of comparative merits)
Application: brought under Articles 236 EC and 152 EA, in which Ms Barbin seeks annulment of the European Parliament’s decision of 16 October
2006 allocating her one merit point under the 2005 promotion procedure.
Held: The application is dismissed. The parties are to bear their own costs.
Summary
1.      Officials – Promotion – Consideration of comparative merits
(Staff Regulations, Arts 43 and 45)
2.      Plea of illegality – Scope – Measures the illegality of which may be pleaded
(Art. 241 EC)
1.      The consideration of comparative merits for the purpose of awarding merit points to an official may be conducted only within
the directorate-general to which he is assigned, in view of the limited number of merit points available for each directorate-general,
and given that each official in a directorate or department who is eligible for promotion is competing with all the other
officials in his directorate or department for a limited number of merit points. The directorate-general designated to award
merit points is that in which the official has spent the longest period of assignment during the reference year.
(see paras 44-45)
See:
T-289/04 Lantzoni v Court of Justice [2006] ECR-SC I‑A‑2‑39 and II‑A‑2‑171, paras 68 and 69; T-156/05 Lantzoni v Court of Justice [2006] ECR-SC I‑A‑2‑189 and II‑A‑2‑969, paras 52 and 53
2.      The scope of a plea of illegality must be confined to what is essential for resolving the dispute. The general measure the
illegality of which is pleaded must be applicable, directly or indirectly, to the circumstances which are the subject of the
action, and there must be a direct legal connection between the individual decision contested and the general measure in question.
(see para. 61)
See:
21/64 Macchiorlati Dalmas v High Authority [1965] ECR 175, 187; 32/65 Italy v Council and Commission [1966] ECR 389, 409
T-6/92 and T-52/92 Reinarz v Commission [1993] ECR II‑1047, para. 57; T-60/99 Townsend v Commission [2000] ECR-SC I‑A‑11 and II‑45, para. 53
F-19/05 Sanchez Ferriz v Commission [2006] ECR-SC I‑A‑1‑41 and II‑A‑1‑135, para. 57