CELEX: 62009FJ0016
Language: en
Date: 2009-11-30 00:00:00
Title: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 30 November 2009. # Jorge de Britto Patrício-Dias v Commission of the European Communities. # Public service - Officials - Statement of reasons. # Case F-16/09.

JUDGMENT OF THE CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL
      (First Chamber)
      30 November 2009
      Case F-16/09
      Jorge de Britto Patrício-Dias
      v
      Commission of the European Communities 
      (Civil Service – Officials – Reports procedure – Career development report – 2007 appraisal procedure – Infringement of Article 43 of the Staff Regulations – Statement of reasons – Manifest error of assessment – Appraisal of efficiency for part of the reference period)
      Application: brought under Articles 236 EC and 152 EA, in which Mr de Britto Patrício-Dias seeks annulment of his career development report
         for the period from 1 January to 31 December 2007 and of the appointing authority’s decision of 21 November 2008 rejecting
         his complaint against the abovementioned career development report.
      
      Held: The action is dismissed. The applicant is ordered to bear the costs.
      
      Summary
      1.      Officials – Reports procedure – Career development report – Assessment showing a decline compared with previous report – Obligation
            to state reasons
      (Staff Regulations, Arts 25 and 43)
      2.      Officials – Reports procedure – Career development report – Obligation for appraisal to cover the entire reference period
      (Staff Regulations, Art. 43)
      1.      Career development reports, which do not constitute decisions within the meaning of Article 25 of the Staff Regulations, are
         governed by the special provisions referred to in Article 43 of the Staff Regulations. However, the administration is obliged
         to state in a sufficient and detailed manner the reasons on which each career development report is based and to give the
         person concerned an opportunity to make observations on those reasons, compliance with those requirements being all the more
         important where the assessment shows a decline compared with the previous report. Where the decline in assessment is limited,
         the administration may comply with its obligation to state reasons by justifying the decline concisely, such as by making
         slight changes to the analytical assessments of the official’s performance compared with the assessments given in the previous
         career development report.
      
      (see para. 45)
      See:
      122/75 Küster v Parliament [1976] ECR 1685, paras 24 and 25
      
      T-187/01 Mellone v Commission [2002] ECR-SC I‑A‑81 and II‑389, para. 27 and the case-law cited therein; T-16/03 Ferrer de Moncada v Commission [2004] ECR-SC I‑A‑261 and II‑1163, para. 56; T-50/04 Micha v Commission [2005] ECR-SC I‑A‑339 and II‑1499, para. 36
      
      F‑65/05 Sequeira Wandschneider v Commission [2007] ECR-SC I‑A‑1‑0000 and II‑A‑1‑0000, para. 96; F-93/08 N v Parliament [2009] ECR-SC I‑A‑1‑0000 and II‑A‑1‑0000, para. 82
      
      2.      It is clear from the provisions of Article 1 of the general implementing provisions for Article 43 of the Staff Regulations,
         adopted by the Commission, that the career development report, which is intended to assess an official’s efficiency, ability
         and conduct in the service, must cover the whole of the reporting period and not just part of it. However, even if the reporting
         officer committed a manifest error of assessment by confining his appraisal of the efficiency of the official reported on
         to part of the reporting period, that irregularity would be such as to entail the annulment of the career development report
         only in so far as it was not rectified by the countersigning officer or the appeal assessor, the latter being reporting officers
         in their own right.
      
      (see paras 52, 56)
      See:
      T-326/01 Lebedef v Commission [2003] ECR-SC I‑A‑273 and II‑1317, para. 61; T-43/04 Fardoom and Reinard v Commission [2005] ECR-SC I‑A‑329 and II‑1465, para. 90
      
      F‑71/06 Lebedef-Caponi v Commission [2007] ECR-SC I‑A‑1‑115 and II‑A‑1‑629, para. 48; F-28/06 Sequeira Wandschneider v Commission [2007] ECR-SC I‑A‑1‑0000 and II‑A‑1‑0000, paras 43 and 48; F-34/07 Skareby v Commission [2008] ECR-SC I‑A‑1‑0000 and II‑A‑1‑0000, para. 58, on appeal before the Court of First Instance, Case T‑91/09 P