2.

Since the procedure followed by the Parliament, which led to the applicant's dismissal, does not in itself disclose any illegality in the dismissal, we must now turn to the objection raised by the applicant that the unfavourable assessments contained in the probation report are insufficiently reasoned. (a) It may first be observed that of the nine criteria listed in the report, four are marked “unsatisfactory”. Against Heading A.2. (Judgment and adaptability), it is stated that the applicant had difficulty in reconciling the demands of his duties with his personal wishes. Against Heading A.5. (Responsibility and devotion to duty) is entered the remark that he absented himself from work on several occasions without giving any reasons or prior notice. Against Headings C.1. (Relations within the department) and C.2. (Relations with third parties) it is observed that he always had difficulties, both with his colleagues and with his superiors. Finally, the summary mentions inter alia that he frequently displayed a “lack of interest” in his work and had numerous and sometimes violent disagreements with his superiors. In the applicant's submission, these remarks are too laconic and too imprecise to be considered an adequate statement of reasons for the unfavourable evaluations. He maintains that the internal memoranda issued later, which specify the criticisms made of him, must be disregarded for these purposes. This line of argument is irrefutable inasmuch as subsequent statements which are not communicated to the person concerned and upon which he has therefore no opportunity to comment may not be adopted in order to substantiate the assessments contained in the probation report. The duty of notification laid down by Article 34 of the Staff Regulations is indeed designed to ensure that the person concerned has the right to submit any comments to the appointing authority; this presupposes that he is acquainted with the criticisms made of him and with the grounds underlying them. Consequently, the sole issue is whether the observations in the probation report are sufficiently precise to enable the person concerned to submit his comments and to permit judicial review of the exercise of the discretion (cf. the judgment in Lachmüller ( 4 )). The duty to state the grounds on which a decision is based, as required by the second paragraph of Article 25 of the Staff Regulations, represents one expression of a general legal principle, but it should not be the subject of unduly rigorous requirements, even with regard to judicial review, since, as the Court of Justice repeated in the case of Munk, the judicial review of an authority's exercise of its discretion is confined to cases of manifest error. The requirement is thus satisfied when, as was stated in the judgment in the Renckens ( 5 ) case, ‘the reasons on which the measure adversely affecting an official is based are shown clearly and unambiguously’. Whether that applies to the reason stated — that the applicant had difficulties in reconciling the demands of his employment with his own personal wishes — is perhaps doubtful but may ultimately remain undecided in the present case. At all events, I would observe that no grounds are entered against the criterion “Relations with third parties” (Heading C.2), which was similarly judged to be unsatisfactory; the comment that the applicant had always had difficulties with both his colleagues and his superiors can logically refer only to “Relations within the departments” (Heading C.I.), in respect of which criticisms were also made. (b) This failure to state any reasons is in my estimation less serious, however, than the applicant's further criticism that the report was not properly completed and therefore could not enable an objective appraisal to be made of his abilities. Here I would recall that under the last sentence of the first subparagraph of Article 34 (2) a probationary official whose work has not proved adequate for establishment in his post is to be dismissed. It follows that a probation report, on which a dismissal decision is based, must, in principle, contain all the essential facts and judgments which are needed to convey as objective a picture as possible of his ability, regard being had to his prospective career as an official. An assessment which is to be as objective as possible therefore demands that in principle every line of the report shall be filled in. A glance at the report will show that this was not done in the present case. Even if the fact that there is no entry against the Heading “Training” does not amount to a failure to fulfil an essential procedural requirement, it is none the less reprehensible that even the space allowed for specifying the main activities carried out during the probationary period has been left blank. As the Court of Justice made clear in its judgment in the Munk case, the probation report must give an accurate account of the main activities of the person concerned during his probationary period so that the appointing authority may take its decision and state the reasons on which it is based. (c) Even if we take the view that even this shortcoming does not, in view of the applicant's duties and the gravity of the other criticisms which are made of him, cast doubt upon the validity of the probation report, there is one final observation to be made, namely that the spaces under Heading B of the report, which are provided for an assessment of the person's efficiency, have not been filled in either. The Community legislature attached such importance to that particular criterion that it introduced the following express provision into the first subparagraph of Article 34 (2) of the Staff Regulations: ‘... a report shall be made on the ability of the probationer to perform the duties pertaining to his post and also on his efficiency and conduct in the service’. The failure to comment under this heading is thus an infringement of Article 34 of the Staff Regulations and constitutes a failure to observe an essential procedural requirement, which, unlike the nonobservance of the timelimit laid down by that article, points to the defective character of the probation report.