EN
ReportsofCases
ECLI:EU:T:2011 :664 1JUDGMENT O F THE GENERAL COURT (Appeal Ch amber)
15 November 2011
Case T-58/11 P
Mic hel Nolin
v
European Comm ission
(Appeal — Civil service — Officials — Promotion — Withdrawal of me rit points and priority points 
following a p romotion on th e basis of Article 29 o f the Staff Regulations — Legal basis — 
Compe tence of the author of the act — Principle of non -discrimination)
Appeal: brought a gainst th e judgment of the European U nion C ivil Service Tribunal (T hird 
Chamber) of 1 December 2010 i n Case F-82/09 N olin v C omm ission, seeking the setting 
aside of that judgment.
Held: The appeal is dismissed. Mr Michel Nolin is ordered to bear h is own costs and to pay 
those incurred by the Commission in the appeal.
Summ ary
1. Officials — Promotion — Procedure — Merit and priority points — Number of merit and priority 
points corresponding to the promotion threshold — Deduction from t he total number of points 
accumulated b y an official wh o has been promoted
(Staff Regulations, Arts 29 a nd 45)
2. Officials — Appointing authority — Powers — Exercise — Distribution of business — Exceptions — 
Sub-delegation — Lawfulness — Conditions
(Staff Regulations, Art. 2)
1. The term ‘promotion’ used in Article 29(1)(a)(iii) of the Staff Regulations must be read in th e light 
of the definition s et out in Article 45 o f the Staff Regulations and must therefore be consistent with th e 
implementing provisions adopted on th at basis. Candida tures for promotion u nder Article 29(1)(a) of 
the Staff Regulations must be considered in accordance with th e provisions of Article 45 o f the Staff 
Regulations, which necessarily includes Article 2(3) of th e general implementing provisions for 
Article 45 o f the Staff Regulations, adopted by th e Commission i n 2004 , which expressly provides 
that, following a p romotion, the number of points corresponding to the promotion th reshold must be 
deducted from th e aggregate number of points accumulated by the promoted official.
If that were no t the case, officials promoted under Article 29 o f the Staff Regulations would be able to 
use the large number of me rit and priority points they had a cquired in a l ower grade in order to gain 
further promotion, which would contradict Article 45 o f the Staff Regulations, according to which the 
merits of an official must be compared, for the purpose of promotion, with th ose of colleagues in th e
2 ECLI:EU:T:2011 :664SUMM ARY–CASET-58/11P
NOLINvCOMM ISSION
 same g rade. Furthermore, those officials would have a g reater chance than colleagues promoted solely 
on th e basis of Article 45 o f the Staff Regulations of gaining further promotion ra pidly, contrary to the 
principle of equal treatment, w hich is a g eneral principle of European U nion l aw, enshrined in 
Articles 20 a nd 21 o f the Ch arter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.
(see paras 36, 37)
See:
C-550/07 P Akzo N obel Chemicals and Akcros Chemicals v C omm ission and Others [2010 ] ECR I-8301 , para. 54
T-22/92 W eissenfels v P arliament [1993 ] ECR II- 1095 , para. 66; T-302/02 K enny v C ourt of Justice [2003 ] ECR-SC 
I-A-235 a nd II-1137 , para. 56
2. A sub-delegation o r deviation f rom th e criteria f or division o f the powers conferred by the Staff 
Regulations on th e appointing authority cannot render void an act done by the ad ministration u nless 
such sub-delegation o r deviation involves the possibility of adversely affecting on e of the guarantees 
given to o fficials by th e Staff R egulations or th e principles of good ad ministration i n staff 
management. A d ecision taken by the Commission u nder Article 2 of the Staff Regulations involves a 
distribution o f business w ithin th e Commission’s services, rather th an a ri gid di vision o f powers, 
non-observance of which could entail the nullity of acts done outside the limits laid d own.
(see para. 49)
See:
T-23/96 D e Persio v C omm ission [1998 ] ECR-SC I-A-483 a nd II-1413 , para. 111; T-40/07 P a nd T-62/07 P de B rito 
Sequeira Ca rvalho v C omm ission and C omm ission v de B rito Sequeira Ca rvalho [2009 ] ECR-SC I- B-1-89 
and II-B-1-551, para. 155