EN
ReportsofCases
ECLI:EU:F:2010 :9 1JUDGMENT O F THE CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL
(First Ch amber)
23 February 2010
Case F-7/09
Marie-Hélène Faria
v
Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market ( T rade M arks and Designs) (OHIM)
(Civil service — Officials — Reports — Evaluation r eport — 2006 /2007 ev aluation pe riod — 
Application for annulment of the evaluation r eport — Manifest error of assessment — 
Compe nsation for non -material damage)
Application:brought u nder Articles 236 E C and 152 E A, in which M s Faria e ssentially seeks, first, 
annulment of her evaluation r eport for the pe riod from 1 October 2006 t o 30 September 
2007 , and, second, an o rder th at O HIM p ay EUR 100 000 i n da mages for th e 
non-material harm she claims to have suffered.
Held: The applicant’s evaluation r eport dra wn up by OHIM for the period from 1 October 2006 
to 30 September 2007 i s annulled. The remainder of the action i s dismissed. OHIM is 
ordered to bear its own costs and to pay th ree q uarters of the applicant’s costs. The 
applicant is ordered to bear on e quarter of her own costs.
Summ ary
1. Officials — Reports procedure — Evaluation report
(Staff Regulations, Art. 43)
2. Officials — Reports procedure — Evaluation report — Manifest error of assess ment
(Staff Regulations, Art. 43)
3. Officials — Reports procedure — Evaluation report — Working time divided b etween two different 
functions
(Staff Regulations, Art. 43)
4. Officials — Reports procedure — Evaluation report — Assess ment of an official’s efficiency
(Staff Regulations, Art. 43)
5. Officials — Reports procedure — Evaluation report — Purpose of general assess ments
(Staff Regulations, Art. 43)
6. Officials — Reports procedure — Evaluation report — Manifest error of assess ment
(Staff Regulations, Art. 43)
2 ECLI:EU:F:2010 :9SUMM ARY—CASEF-7/09
FARIAvOHIM
7. Officials — Actions — Action for damages — Annulment of the illegal act in d ispute — 
Whether appropriate reparation for non-material damage
(Staff Regulations, Art. 91)
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 pe rson r eported on , since the Union institutions have a w ide discretion 
to assess th e work of their officials. Consequently, except in th e case of errors of fact, manifest errors 
of assessment or m isuse of powers, it is no t for th e T ribunal to review th e validity of th e 
administration’s assessment, in an ev aluation r eport, of the professional abilities of an official, where it 
involves complex value judgements which by th eir ve ry nature ar e no t amenable to objective 
verification.
(see para. 44)
See:
36/81, 37/81 a nd 218/81 S eton v C omm ission [1983 ] ECR 1789 , para. 23
T-63/89 L atham v C omm ission [1991 ] ECR II- 19, para. 19; T-18/93 M arcato v C omm ission [1994 ] ECR-SC I-A-215 
and II-681, para. 45; T-179/02 P flugradt v E CB [2003 ] ECR-SC I- A-149 a nd II-733, para. 46; T-96/04 C wik v 
Comm ission [2005 ] ECR-SC I- A-343 a nd II-1523 , para. 41; T-285/04 A ndrieu v C omm ission [2006 ] ECR-SC 
I-A-2-161 a nd II-A-2-775, para. 99
2. In order to prove th at there has been a m anifest error of assessment in th e dra wing-up of his 
evaluation r eport, an official of the Office for Harmonisation i n th e Internal Market (T rade M arks 
and Designs) may rely on a c omparison b etween the different versions of that report if they have b een 
finalised, that is to say, countersigned by the reporting officer and th e countersigning officer, and if 
they actually form p art of the procedure for dra wing up th e ev aluation r eport, laid d own in th e 
general implementing provisions for Article 43 o f the Staff Regulations, adopted by th e Office and 
applied w here th e official concerned di sagrees with th e content of th e various ve rsions of th e 
evaluation r eport.
(see para. 45)
See:
F-46/06 Sk areby v C omm ission [2008 ] ECR-SC I-A-1-69 a nd II-A-1-337, para. 95 a nd the case-law cited therein
3. An ev aluation r eport which states that, throughout the reference pe riod, an official spent half of his 
working time i n on e post and the other half in another post, and which therefore assesses his work on 
that basis, whereas it becomes apparent, by addi ng up th e different percentages of working time pe r 
post, th at the official spent just under two th irds of his time i n th e first post and just over on e third 
in the second, is vitiated by substantive inaccuracy.
(see paras 48-49)
4. Because of its effect on th e efficiency or conduct in th e service of officials, the workload, where 
abnormally heavy, constitutes on e of the factors which th e institutions should no t overlook when 
assessing the performance of their staff.
Although assessors, in exercising the discretion c onferred on th em, are free to determine how th ey will 
take a ccount of an abnormally heavy workload a nd to decide, if appropriate, no t to ad just their 
assessment criteria, they may no t, however, ignore such a w orkload a ltogether, since the assessments 
contained in th e ev aluation r eport must give some i ndication, however brief, that the assessors have 
taken it into account.
ECLI:EU:F:2010 :9 3SUMM ARY—CASEF-7/09
FARIAvOHIM
The various constraints and difficulties which the assessors must take into account when ev aluating an 
official’s efficiency or conduct in th e service include th ose associated with staff shortages and th e 
resulting extra burden of work for the officials concerned.
The combination o f two functions by definition r epresents a m anifest extra b urden of work for an 
official, to which an ev aluation r eport must therefore refer.
(see paras 52-53)
See:
T-236/05 A ldershoff v C omm ission [2007 ] ECR-SC I-A-2-13 a nd II-A-2-75, para. 85
5. The general assessment must reflect the analytical assessments within the same ev aluation r eport.
Accepting th at considerable improveme nts m ade to th e analytical assessments need no t lead t o 
changes to the general assessments, namely those particularly taken into account during the promotion 
procedures, would be contrary to th e requirement for consistency between th ose two types of 
assessments.
(see paras 55, 57)
See:
T-110/04 S equeira W andschneider v C omm ission [2007 ] ECR-SC I- A-2-73 a nd II-A-2-533, para. 110 a nd th e 
case-law cited therein
6. An ev aluation r eport which contains a s ubstantive inaccuracy concerning the working time s pent by 
the official concerned on e ach of the functions evaluated in th e report, which m akes no r eference to 
the official’s workload a nd which is no t consistent with th e preliminary ve rsions of that report is 
vitiated by a m anifest error of assessment.
(see para. 58)
7. The annulment of an act of the ad ministration w hich is contested by an official may in itself 
constitute appropriate and, in principle, sufficient reparation f or any non -material damage which th e 
official or other staff mem ber may have suffered, except where the unlawful act of the ad ministration 
contains an assessment of the official’s abilities and conduct which is capable of offending him.
(see para. 64)
See:
T-223/99 D ejaiffe v O HIM [ 2000 ] ECR-SC I-A-277 a nd II-1267 , para. 91 a nd the case-law cited therein