EN
ReportsofCases
ECLI:EU:F:2010 :100 1JUDGMENT O F THE CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL (First Ch amber)
14 September 2010
Case F-85/09
F rancisco Rossi Fer reras
v
European Comm ission
(Civil service — Officials — 2001 /2002 a ppraisal — Career developme nt report — Compliance with an 
annulling judgment — Effects of the withdrawal of an act — Establishment of the objectives)
Application:brought under Articles 236 E C and 152 E A, in which M r Rossi Ferreras seeks annulment 
of his career developme nt report ‘for the period from 1 July 2001 t o 31 December 2002 ’.
Held: The applicant’s action is dismissed. The applicant is ordered to pay all the costs.
Summ ary
1. Actions for annulment — Judgment annulling a m easure — Effects — Effects of the annulment of an 
act concluding an administrative proceeding
(Art. 233 E C)
2. Officials — Reports procedure — Career development report — Drawing up
(Staff Regulations, Art. 43)
3. Officials — Reports procedure — Career de velopment report — System i ntroduced b y the 
Comm ission — Transition from t he old to the new system
(Staff Regulations, Art. 43)
4. Officials — Reports procedure — Career development report — Judicial review — Limits
(Staff Regulations, Art. 43)
5. Officials — Reports procedure — Career development report — Change of assess ment compared w ith 
previous report — Obligation to state reasons — Scope
(Staff Regulations, Art. 43)
1. The annulment by th e Courts of the Union o f an act concluding an ad ministrative p roceeding 
which comprises several stages does no t necessarily entail the annulment of the entire procedure prior 
to th e ad option o f the contested act, regardless o f the grounds, procedural or substantive, of the 
judgment pronouncing the annulment.
2 ECLI:EU:F:2010 :100SUMM ARY—CASEF-85/09
ROSSIFERRERASvCOMM ISSION
(see para. 49)
See:
T-2/95 Industrie des p oudres sphériques v C ouncil [1998 ] ECR II- 3939 , para. 91
F-50/06 L ebedef-Caponi v C omm ission [2007 ] ECR-SC I- A-1-109 a nd II-A-1-597, para. 37; F-46/07 T zirani v 
Comm ission [2008 ] ECR-SC I-A-1-323 a nd II-A-1-1773 , para. 53
2. Where a dra ft career developme nt report has been dra wn up improperly, because th e reporting 
officer failed to conduct th e requisite prior assessment interview, that irr egularity is effectively 
corrected if a f ormal interview is held with th e reporting officer or countersigning officer after the 
report has been dra wn up, but before it becomes final, at which th e pe rson c oncerned can submit his 
observations.
(see paras 53-54)
See:
T-155/03, T-157/03 a nd T-331/03 C wik v C omm ission [2005 ] ECR-SC I-A-411 a nd II-1865 , paras 159 t o 161
3. It follows from A rticle 4(1) and Article 7(1) of the general provisions for implementing Article 43 o f 
the Staff Regulations, adopted by th e Commission, that the appraisal of officials’ efficiency in th e 
2001 /2002 e xercise was conducted despite th e fact th at no o bjectives had b een set in ad vance. 
However, the absence of objectives does no t preclude th e possibility th at officials were allocated 
specific tasks by their imme diate superiors.
That being so, there is no thing to prevent the reporting officer from stating in the career developme nt 
report for the reference pe riod th at the official did no t achieve h is objectives, where appropriate, 
provided that his tasks w ere defined in his job description, of which he was aware.
The validity of such a r eport cannot be called into question b y the argument that the tasks allocated to 
an official are no t sufficiently precise to enable him to determine precisely how he is to carry them o ut. 
In such a s ituation, the on us was on h im to ask his line managers for the necessary explanations and 
advice.
(see paras 55-57)
4. The institutions of the Union e njoy a w ide discretion i n appraising th e work of their officials. 
Consequently, value judgements relating to officials in career developme nt reports are no t subject to 
judicial review except as regards any irr egularities of form o r manifest errors of fact vitiating th e 
assessments made by the administration o r any misuse of power.
(see para. 72)
See:
T-249/04 C ombescot v C omm ission [2007 ] ECR-SC I-A-2-181 a nd II-A-2-1219 , para. 78
5. The ad ministration is obliged to state in a s ufficient and detailed manner the reasons on w hich the 
career developme nt report is based in order to give th e pe rson c oncerned an opportunity to m ake 
observations on th ose reasons, compliance with th ose requirements being all th e m ore important 
where the assessment shows a d ecline compared with th e previous report.
ECLI:EU:F:2010 :100 3SUMM ARY—CASEF-85/09
ROSSIFERRERASvCOMM ISSION
However, since an official’s performance may vary from on e reference period to another, it is necessary 
that the difference between successive career developme nt reports must be sufficiently clear cut if the 
reporting officer and countersigning officer ar e to be under a p articular o bligation t o provide a 
statement of reasons.
(see paras 79, 81)
See:
T-187/01 M ellone v C omm ission [2002 ] ECR-SC I-A-81 a nd II-389, para. 27 a nd the case-law cited therein; T-50/04 
Micha v C omm ission [2005 ] ECR-SC I-A-339 a nd II-1499 , para. 36
F-111/05 S anchez Ferriz v C omm ission [2007 ] ECR-SC I- A-1-71 a nd II-A-1-425, para. 65; F-93/08 N v P arliament 
[2009 ] ECR-SC I-A-1-433 a nd II-A-1-2339 , para. 86