Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

Judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 8 July 2020 –  
WH v EUIPO

(Case T‑138/19)

(Civil service – Public officials – 2018 promotion exercise – Decision not to promote – Action for annulment – Disregard of the procedural requirements – Articles 76 and 78(6) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court – Admissibility – Rights of the defence – Obligation to state reasons – Comparison of the merits)

| 1. | Judicial proceedings – Application initiating proceedings – Formal requirements – Identification of the subject matter of the dispute – Brief summary of the pleas in law on which the application is based  (Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 21, first para. and 53, first para; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 76(d))  (see para. 28) |

| 2. | Actions brought by officials – Action against a decision rejecting a complaint – Admissibility  (Staff Regulations, Arts 90 and 91)  (see paras 33-35) |

| 3. | Judicial proceedings – Application initiating proceedings – Formal requirements – Contested act not produced – No request from the Registrar to regularise the application – Inadmissibility – Possibility of regularisation  (Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 21, second para.; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 78(1) and (6))  (see paras 38, 40-42) |

| 4. | Officials – Promotion – Consideration of comparative merits – Procedures – System established by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) – Competence of the Executive Director of EUIPO to draw up the list of promoted officials – Lack of binding character of the recommendations of the Joint Promotion Committee)  (Staff Regulations, Art. 45(1), first subpara.)  (see paras 54-57) |

| 5. | Actions brought by officials – Prior administrative complaint – Nature of the procedure – Subject matter – Re-examination of the contested decision – Consequence – Preparation of the decision by an agent working under the authority of a person who participated in the procedure for the adoption of the decision – Whether permissible  (Staff Regulations, Art. 90(1) and (2))  (see paras 63, 64) |

| 6. | Actions brought by officials – Pleas in law – Inadequate statement of reasons – Finding made by the Court of its own motion  (Staff Regulations, Art. 25, second para.)  (see para. 72) |

| 7. | Officials – Promotion – Complaint by a candidate not promoted – Rejection decision – Obligation to state reasons – Scope – Inadequate statement of reasons – Regularisation during the proceedings – Conditions  (Art. 296 TFEU; Staff Regulations, Arts 25, second para., 45 and 90(2))  (see paras 73-78, 81) |

| 8. | Officials – Promotion – Candidates eligible for promotion – No right to promotion  (Staff Regulations, Art. 45(1))  (see para. 86) |

| 9. | Officials – Promotion – Consideration of comparative merits – Administration’s discretion – Judicial review – Limits – Manifest error of assessment – Definition  (Staff Regulations, Art. 45(1))  (see paras 87-89) |

Re:

Application under Article 270 TFEU seeking annulment, first, of the decision of 18 July 2018 by which EUIPO established a definitive list of the officials promoted in the context of the 2018 promotion exercise, in that that decision did not include the name of the applicant and, second, the decision of 18 December 2018 by which the competent appointing authority rejected the complaint lodged by the applicant against that decision.

Operative part

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |

| 2. | Orders WH to pay the costs. |

[Top](#document1)