Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

1. Officials ° Actions ° Subject-matter ° Direction to the administration ° Inadmissibility

(Staff Regulations, Art. 91)

2. Procedure ° Originating application ° Establishment of the subject-matter of a claim ° New claim made in the reply ° Inadmissibility ° Request for separate treatment of an additional claim ° Rejection ° Introduction of new pleas in the course of proceedings ° Conditions

(Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Arts 44(1) and 48(2))

3. Officials ° Vacant post ° Internal directive of an institution concerning the application procedure ° Legal effects

4. Officials ° Vacant post ° To be filled by promotion or transfer ° Consideration of comparative merits of candidates ° Factors to be taken into account ° Staff reports ° Discretion of the appointing authority

(Staff Regulations, Art. 45(1))

5. Officials ° Promotion ° Promises ° Disregard of provisions of the Staff Regulations ° Legitimate expectation ° None

(Staff Regulations, Art. 45(1))

Summary

1. 1. The Court of First Instance is not entitled, in judicial review proceedings, to encroach upon the powers of the Community authorities by issuing directions to them.

2. 2. Under Article 44(1) in conjunction with Article 48(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, the subject-matter of the claim must be set out in the application, and a claim put forward for the first time in the reply modifies the original subject-matter of the application and must be regarded as a new claim and, accordingly, dismissed as inadmissible. Moreover, the Rules of Procedure do not allow the Court to treat an additional claim of that sort as an application within the meaning of Article 44 of those Rules which needs to be treated as separate proceedings. In contrast, the introduction of a new plea based on matters of fact which come to light in the course of the procedure must be permitted under Article 48(2).

3. A staff notice of an institution concerning the application procedure for vacant posts which is communicated to its entire staff constitutes an internal directive by which the administration imposes on itself indicative rules of conduct from which it may not depart without specifying the reasons which led it to do so, since otherwise the principle of equality of treatment would be infringed.

4. The requirement for consideration of the comparative merits of candidates for promotion and the reports on them reflects both the principle of equality of treatment for officials and the principle that they are entitled to career prospects. Comparative merits have been validly considered where an initial selection of candidates is made on the basis of their staff reports considered generally and any additional information available, which narrows down the candidates to a small number, and where a comparison of the selected candidates' competence is made thereafter, followed by an assessment in the light of the particular qualifications required by the notice of vacancy.

There is no irregularity in the fact that, as the selection was made during the procedure for drawing up new staff reports, reports relating to the previous period were taken into account, since there were other data available to supplement them, nor in the fact that, when called upon to justify its recommendations, the authority which selected the candidates confirmed them after consulting the new staff reports of the selected candidates only, which had been drawn up in the meantime.

Moreover, whilst seniority in grade and age may be taken into account, they cannot be relevant factors where the appointing authority, which has a wide discretion in this area, is able to decide between the candidates on the basis of an assessment of their qualifications and merits.

5. 5. A promise of promotion made in disregard of the provisions of the Staff Regulations cannot give rise to a legitimate expectation on the part of the person to whom it is made.