Although the appointing authority is not under an obligation to provide unsuccessful candidates with reasons for its decision on promotion, it must, on the other hand, give its decision for rejecting complaints lodged by those officials. As, under Article 45 of the Staff Regulations, promotion involves choices, it suffices that the statement of reasons for the rejection of the complaint deals with the satisfaction of the legal conditions which under the Staff Regulations determine the regularity of the promotion.

The periodic report constitutes an indispensable criterion of assessment each time the official's career is taken into consideration by the administration and a promotion procedure is tainted with irregularity where the appointing authority has not been able to consider the comparative merits of the candidates because there has been a substantial delay on the part of the administration in drawing up the periodic reports of one or more of them.

However, that does not mean that when the promotion decision is made all applicants must be at exactly the same stage regarding the state of their periodic reports or that the appointing authority must postpone its decision if the most recent report on one or other of the applicants is not yet final as a result of referral to the appeal assessor or to the Joint Committee. There can, however, be an irregularity where the periodic report is missing not as a result of the normal course of the reporting procedure but of a substantial delay which is attributable to the administration.

On the other hand, the abovementioned irregularity does not incur a sanction in two situations.

First, in exceptional circumstances, the absence of a periodic report may be compensated for by the existence of other information on an official's merits. A periodic report which is not final and, moreover, challenged by the official may not of itself serve as a source of such other information. Furthermore, such other information must meet certain conditions and it is for the defendant institution to show that they have been satisfied. They must be sufficiently objective to allow judicial review, contain an assessment of the official's merits by the persons responsible for drawing up his periodic report, have been communicated to the official in such a way as to ensure his rights of defence and, finally, be known to the promotions committee when the latter considers the comparative merits of all the candidates.

Secondly, that fact that the personal file of one candidate is irregular and incomplete is not a sufficient ground for the annulment of the promotions. It must also be established that this was capable of having a decisive effect on the promotion procedure.

(see paras 38-40, 45,52,56)

See: 24/79 Oberthür v Commission [1980] ECR 1743, para. 8; 156/79 and 51/80 Gratreau v Commission [1980] ECR 3943, paras 22 and 24; 263/81 List v Commission [1983] ECR 103, para. 27; 7/86 Vincent v Parliament [1987] ECR 2473, paras 16 and 17; C-68/91 P Moritz v Commission [1992] ECR I-6849, para. 16; T-386/94 Allo v Commission [1996] ECRSC I-A-393 and II-1161, para. 38; T-144/95 Michael v Commission [1996] ECRSC I-A-529 and II-1429, para. 52; T-82/98 Jacobs v Commission [2000] ECRSC I-A-39 and II-169, para. 40