CELEX: 62009FJ0085
Language: en
Date: 2010-09-14 00:00:00
Title: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 14 September 2010. # Francisco Rossi Ferreras v European Commission. # Public service - Officials. # Case F-85/09.

Reports of Cases
                      JUDGMENT OF THE CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL (First Chamber)
                                               14 September 2010
                                                  Case F-85/09
                                           Francisco Rossi Ferreras
                                                       v
                                            European Commission
   (Civil service — Officials — 2001/2002 appraisal — Career development report — Compliance with an
         annulling judgment — Effects of the withdrawal of an act — Establishment of the objectives)
   Application:brought under Articles 236 EC and 152 EA, in which Mr Rossi Ferreras seeks annulment
                 of his career development report ‘for the period from 1 July 2001 to 31 December 2002’.
   Held:         The applicant’s action is dismissed. The applicant is ordered to pay all the costs.
                                                   Summary
   1. Actions for annulment — Judgment annulling a measure — Effects — Effects of the annulment of an
   act concluding an administrative proceeding
   (Art. 233 EC)
   2. Officials — Reports procedure — Career development report — Drawing up
   (Staff Regulations, Art. 43)
   3. Officials — Reports procedure — Career development report — System introduced by the
   Commission — Transition from the old to the new system
   (Staff Regulations, Art. 43)
   4. Officials — Reports procedure — Career development report — Judicial review — Limits
   (Staff Regulations, Art. 43)
   5. Officials — Reports procedure — Career development report — Change of assessment compared with
   previous report — Obligation to state reasons — Scope
   (Staff Regulations, Art. 43)
   1. The annulment by the Courts of the Union of an act concluding an administrative proceeding
   which comprises several stages does not necessarily entail the annulment of the entire procedure prior
   to the adoption of the contested act, regardless of the grounds, procedural or substantive, of the
   judgment pronouncing the annulment.
EN
          ECLI:EU:F:2010:100                                                                             1
 ---pagebreak---                                                  SUMMARY — CASE F-85/09
                                              ROSSI FERRERAS v COMMISSION
                                                                                                          (see para. 49)
          See:
          T-2/95 Industrie des poudres sphériques v Council [1998] ECR II-3939, para. 91
          F-50/06 Lebedef-Caponi v Commission [2007] ECR-SC I-A-1-109 and II-A-1-597, para. 37; F-46/07 Tzirani v
          Commission [2008] ECR-SC I-A-1-323 and II-A-1-1773, para. 53
2. Where a draft career development report has been drawn up improperly, because the reporting
officer failed to conduct the requisite prior assessment interview, that irregularity is effectively
corrected if a formal interview is held with the reporting officer or countersigning officer after the
report has been drawn up, but before it becomes final, at which the person concerned can submit his
observations.
                                                                                                      (see paras 53-54)
          See:
          T-155/03, T-157/03 and T-331/03 Cwik v Commission [2005] ECR-SC I-A-411 and II-1865, paras 159 to 161
3. It follows from Article 4(1) and Article 7(1) of the general provisions for implementing Article 43 of
the Staff Regulations, adopted by the Commission, that the appraisal of officials’ efficiency in the
2001/2002 exercise was conducted despite the fact that no objectives had been set in advance.
However, the absence of objectives does not preclude the possibility that officials were allocated
specific tasks by their immediate superiors.
That being so, there is nothing to prevent the reporting officer from stating in the career development
report for the reference period that the official did not achieve his objectives, where appropriate,
provided that his tasks were defined in his job description, of which he was aware.
The validity of such a report cannot be called into question by the argument that the tasks allocated to
an official are not sufficiently precise to enable him to determine precisely how he is to carry them out.
In such a situation, the onus was on him to ask his line managers for the necessary explanations and
advice.
                                                                                                      (see paras 55-57)
4. The institutions of the Union enjoy a wide discretion in appraising the work of their officials.
Consequently, value judgements relating to officials in career development reports are not subject to
judicial review except as regards any irregularities of form or manifest errors of fact vitiating the
assessments made by the administration or any misuse of power.
                                                                                                          (see para. 72)
          See:
          T-249/04 Combescot v Commission [2007] ECR-SC I-A-2-181 and II-A-2-1219, para. 78
5. The administration is obliged to state in a sufficient and detailed manner the reasons on which the
career development report is based in order 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.
2                                                                                                 ECLI:EU:F:2010:100
 ---pagebreak---                                               SUMMARY — CASE F-85/09
                                           ROSSI FERRERAS v COMMISSION
However, since an official’s performance may vary from one reference period to another, it is necessary
that the difference between successive career development reports must be sufficiently clear cut if the
reporting officer and countersigning officer are to be under a particular obligation to provide a
statement of reasons.
                                                                                                       (see paras 79, 81)
         See:
         T-187/01 Mellone v Commission [2002] ECR-SC I-A-81 and II-389, para. 27 and the case-law cited therein; T-50/04
         Micha v Commission [2005] ECR-SC I-A-339 and II-1499, para. 36
         F-111/05 Sanchez Ferriz v Commission [2007] ECR-SC I-A-1-71 and II-A-1-425, para. 65; F-93/08 N v Parliament
         [2009] ECR-SC I-A-1-433 and II-A-1-2339, para. 86
ECLI:EU:F:2010:100                                                                                                      3