EN
ReportsofCases
ECLI:EU:T:2010 :338 1JUDGMENT O F THE GENERAL COURT (Appeal Ch amber)
1 September 2010
Case T-91/09 P
Carina Sk areby
v
European Comm ission
(Appeal — Civil service — Officials — Reports — Career developme nt report — 2005 a ssessment 
procedure — Simplified report established for the period from January to September 2005 — 
Repetition o f all the findings in the 2004 c areer developme nt report partially annulled subsequent to 
the judgment under appeal)
Appeal: against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (First Ch amber) 
of 15 December 2008 i n Case F-34/07 Sk areby v C omm ission [2008 ] ECR-SC I- A-1-477 
and II-A-1-2637 , seeking to have th at judgment set aside.
Held: The judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union ( First Ch amber) of 
15 December 2008 i n Case F-34/07 Sk areby v C omm ission [2008 ] is set aside in so far as 
the Civil Service Tribunal dismissed th e complaint alleging th e failure to assess th e 
productivity of Ms Carina Skareby for the pe riod from January to September 2005 . The 
decision o f 18 July 2006 e stablishing M s Skareby’s career developme nt report for the 
period from 1 January to 31 December 2005 i s set aside in so far a s it concerns 
paragraph 6.1 entitled ‘Productivity’. The remainder of the action b rought b efore th e 
Civil Service T ribunal under case n umber F-34/07 i s di smissed. The E uropean 
Commission is ordered to bear all the costs relating to the present proceedings and those 
before the Civil Service Tribunal.
Summ ary
1. Appeals — Pleas in law — Inadequate statement of reasons — Recourse by the Civil Service Tribunal 
to an implied statement of reasons — Lawfulness — Conditions
(Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 36 a nd Annex I, Art. 7(1))
2. Appeals — Pleas in law — Error of law
(Art. 256 T FEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Annex I, Art. 10(2))
3. Officials — Actions — Subject-matter — Instruction to the administration — Inadmissibility
(Art. 266 T FEU; Staff Regulations, Art. 91)
1. While the Civil Service Tribunal is under an obligation to state the reasons on w hich its judgments 
are based, in accordance with A rticle 36 o f the Statute of the Court of Justice, which is applicable to it 
pursuant to Article 7(1) of Annex I to th at Statute, that obligation d oes no t require it to provide an
2 ECLI:EU:T:2010 :338SUMM ARY—CASET-91/09P
SKAREBYvCOMM ISSION
 account which covers exhaustively and on e by on e all the arguments put forward b y the parties to the 
dispute. The reasoning may therefore be implicit on c ondition th at it enables the party concerned to 
know why the court of first instance has no t upheld his arguments and provides the appeal court with 
sufficient material for it to exercise its power of review.
(see para. 36)
See:
C-120/06 P and C-121/06 P FIAMM a nd FIAMM T echnologies v C ouncil and Comm ission [2008 ] ECR I-6513 , para. 
96; C-431/07 P Bouygues and Bouygues Télécom v C omm ission [2009 ] ECR I-2665 , para. 42
2. The Civil Service Tribunal committed an error of law in allowing the continuation, in a s implified 
report, of an assessment which, in actual fact, did no t exist because th e Tribunal had p artially set 
aside the career developme nt report for the previous year. The court of first instance was aware of the 
risk it was taking in relying on th at report, given that it drew attention to the fact that its judgment on 
the lawfulness of that report was under appeal.
(see para. 57)
3. The General Court has no j urisdiction to issue dir ections to the institutions or to make statements 
or findings of principle. In accordance with A rticle 266 T FEU it is for the institution w hose act has 
been declared void to take th e necessary me asures to comply with th e judgment annulling it.
(see para. 70)
See:
T-76/03 M eister v O HIM [ 2004 ] ECR-SC I-A-325 a nd II-1477 , para. 38