JUDGMENT OF THE CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL (Second Chamber)

15 June 2010

Case F-45/09

Maddalena Lebedef-Caponi

v

European Commission

(Civil service — Officials — Appraisal — Career development report — 2007 appraisal procedure — Action for annulment — Manifest error of assessment — Staff representatives — Opinion of ad hoc group)

Application: brought under Articles 236 EC and 152 EA, in which Ms Lebedef-Caponi seeks annulment of her career development report for the period from 1 January to 31 December 2007.

Held: The action is dismissed. The applicant is ordered to pay the costs.

Summary

1. Officials — Reports procedure — Career development report

(Staff Regulations, Art. 43)

2. Officials — Actions — Plea alleging lack of competence of the author of the act adversely affecting an official — Finding made by the Court of its own motion

3. Officials — Reports procedure — Career development report — Drawing up — Officials carrying out staff representation duties

(Staff Regulations, Art. 43)

4. Officials — Reports procedure — Career development report — Drawing up — Officials carrying out staff representation duties

(Staff Regulations, Art. 43)

1. It is not for the Civil Service Tribunal to substitute its assessment for that of the persons responsible for appraising the work of the person reported on. Indeed, the Union institutions have a wide discretion to assess the work of their officials. Value judgments made of officials in career development reports are not subject to judicial review, which is confined to any breaches of form, manifest errors of fact invalidating the administration’s assessment and any misuse of power.

(see para. 32)

See:

Judgment of 18 October 2005 in T-51/04 Leite Mateus v Commission, not published in the ECR, para. 51; T-285/04 Andrieu v Commission [2006] ECR-SC I-A-2-161 and II-A-2-775, para. 99

2. A plea alleging that the author of a measure adversely affecting an official was not competent to adopt that measure is a plea concerning a matter of public interest which the Tribunal is bound in any event to examine of its own motion.

(see para. 38)

See:

C-210/98 P Salzgitter v Commission [2000] ECR I-5843, para. 56

T-79/89, T-84/89, T-85/89, T-86/89, T-89/89, T-91/89, T-92/89, T-94/89, T-96/89, T-98/89, T-102/89 and T-104/89 BASF and Others v Commission [1992] ECR II-315, para. 31

3. Although, under Article 6(3)(c) of the general implementing provisions for Article 43 of the Staff Regulations, adopted by the Commission, the officers reporting on an official carrying out staff representation activities are required to consult and take account of the opinion of the ad hoc group when drawing up his career development report, they are not required to follow that opinion. If they do not follow it, they must explain the reasons which led them to depart from it, and simply attaching the opinion of the ad hoc group to the career development report is not sufficient to be regarded as satisfying the requirement to provide a statement of reasons.

Moreover, it does not follow from any provision of the Staff Regulations or the general implementing provisions that the obligation for the reporting officers to take account of the opinion of the ad hoc group requires them to award an official special points in addition to those intended to assess the work he has done in his post.

(see paras 45, 48)

See:

T-326/01 Lebedef v Commission [2003] ECR-SC I-A-273 and II-1317, para. 55; T-98/02 Lebedef-Caponi v Commission [2003] ECR-SC I-A-277 and II-1343, para. 50; T-43/04 Fardoom and Reinard v Commission [2005] ECR-SC I-A-329 and II-1465, para. 87; T-95/04 Lavagnoli v Commission [2006] ECR-SC I-A-2-121 and II-A-2-569, para. 84

F-108/06 Diomede Basili v Commission [2007] ECR-SC I-A-1-447 and II-A-1-2515, paras 37 and 47

4. The performance of a function for which an official has been appointed by the administration and not by the Staff Committee or by a trade union or professional organisation cannot be counted as staff representation activities for the purpose of Article 6(3)(c) of the general implementing provisions for Article 43 of the Staff Regulations, adopted by the Commission. The absence, however regrettable, of a specific provision enabling reporting officers to take such activities into account cannot lead to an interpretation which is manifestly contrary to the letter of the provisions of Article 6(3)(c) of the general implementing provisions, supplemented by Annex I to those provisions.

(see para. 57)

See:

Diomede Basili v Commission, para. 35