EN
ReportsofCases
ECLI:EU:T:2010 :57 1JUDGMENT O F THE GENERAL COURT (Appeal Ch amber)
2 March 2010
Case T-248/08 P
F rantisek D oktor
v
Council of the European Un ion
(Appeal — Civil service — Officials — Recruitment — Probationary pe riod — Extension o f 
probationary pe riod — Report at the end of the probationary period — Dismissal at the end of the 
probationary period — Article 34 o f the Staff Regulations — Distortion o f facts and ev idence — 
Obligation on th e Civil Service Tribunal to state reasons)
Appeal: against the judgment of the European Union C ivil Service Tribunal (Third Ch amber) in 
Case F-73/07 D oktor v C ouncil [2008 ] ECR-SC I- A-1-91 a nd II-A-1-479, and seeking, 
first, annulment of that judgment and, second, damages.
Held: The appeal is dismissed. Mr Frantisek Doktor and the Council of the European Union ar e 
ordered to bear th eir own costs incurred in connection w ith th e appeal.
Summ ary
1. Procedure — Statement of reasons for judgments — Scope
(Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 36 a nd Annex I, Art. 7(1))
2. Officials — Administration’s duty to have regard for the welfare of officials — Scope
(Staff Regulations, Art. 34)
3. Officials — Actions — Act adversely affecting an official — Definition — Preparatory act — 
Probationary report in order to de cide wh ether to appoint as established o fficial or dismiss — 
Not included
(Staff Regulations, Arts 34, 90 a nd 91)
4. Appeal — Pleas in law — Inadequate statement of reasons
(Art. 253 EC)
5. Officials — Decision adversely affecting an official — Obligation to state the reasons on wh ich the 
decision is based — Scope — Inadequate statement of reasons
(Art. 253 EC; Staff Regulations, Art. 25)
2 ECLI:EU:T:2010 :57SUMM ARY—CASET-248/08P
DOKTORvCOUNCIL
1. Judgments of the Civil Service Tribunal must contain an ad equate statement of reasons to enable 
the General Court to exercise its judicial review. However, that obligation c annot be interpreted as 
meaning th at the Civil Service Tribunal is obliged to respond in detail to eve ry single ar gument 
advanced by the appellant, particularly if the argument was no t sufficiently clear and precise and was 
not adequately supported by evidence.
(see para. 64)
See:
C-274/99 P Connolly v C omm ission [2001 ] ECR I-1611 , para. 121 ; judgment of 4 October 2007 i n C-311/05 P Naipes 
Heraclio v O HIM, not published in the ECR, para. 52; C-120/06 P and C-121/06 P FIAMM a nd FIAMM T echnologies 
v Council and Comm ission [2008 ] ECR I-6513 , para. 91
2. In the light of the duty to have regard f or the welfare of officials, which requires a f air b alance to be 
struck between th e requirements of the service and th e interests of the official concerned, the 
appointing authority m ay legitimately decide no t to take s trict me asures imme diately against the 
probationary official in question, but to offer him a s econd chance to prove th at he satisfied th e 
conditions to become a n established official.
(see para. 79)
See:
C-298/93 P Klinke v C ourt of Justice [1994 ] ECR I-3009 , para. 38
3. A probationary report, as a p reparatory act for a d ecision w hether to appoint the probationary 
official as an established official or to dismiss him, does no t constitute an act adversely affecting him.
(see para. 81)
See:
T-156/08 P R v C omm ission [2009 ] ECR-SC I-B-1-11 a nd II-B-1-51, paras 48 t o 55
4. The extent of the obligation to state the reasons on w hich a d ecision o f a C ommunity institution is 
based is a q uestion o f law reviewable by the General Court on a ppeal against a judgment of the Civil 
Service Tribunal.
(see para. 92)
See:
C-189/02 P, C-202/02 P, C-205/02 P to C-208/02 P and C-213/02 P Dansk Rørindustri and Others v C omm ission 
[2005 ] ECR I-5425 , para. 453 ; judgment of 28 February 2008 i n C-17/07 P Neirinck v C omm ission, not published in 
the ECR, paras 50 t o 52; C-413/02 P Bertelsmann a nd So ny Corporation of America v I mpala [2008 ] ECR I-4951 , 
para. 30
5. It is possible, first, to remedy an inadequate statement of reasons — b ut no t on e which is totally 
absent — for a d ecision o f a C ommunity institution ad opted against an official eve n during th e 
proceedings if, before his action w as brought, th e official concerned already had a t his disposal 
information c onstituting th e beginnings of a s tatement of reasons; second, to regard a d ecision a s 
containing a s ufficient statement of reasons if it is adopted in circumstances which are kno wn to him 
and enable him to understand its scope; and th ird, as regards in particular d ecisions rejecting a
ECLI:EU:T:2010 :57 3SUMM ARY—CASET-248/08P
DOKTORvCOUNCIL
 promotion o r a c andida ture, to supplement the statement of reasons in th e decision r ejecting a 
complaint, th e reasons given for the latter decision b eing deeme d to be th e same a s those for the 
decision w hich was the subject of the complaint.
(see para. 93)
See:
T-132/03 Ca sini v C omm ission [2005 ] ECR-SC I-A-253 a nd II-1169 , paras 32 a nd 36 a nd the case-law cited therein; 
T-171/05 N ijs v C ourt of Auditors [2006 ] ECR-SC I-A-2-195 a nd II-A-2-999, paras 42 a nd 45; T-502/04 Lo pparelli v 
Comm ission [2007 ] ECR-SC I- A-2-145 a nd II-A-2-995, paras 76 a nd 83; T-93/03 K onidaris v C omm ission [2007 ] 
ECR-SC I-A-2-149 a nd II-A-2-1045 , paras 51 t o 54