CELEX: 62009TJ0091
Language: en
Date: 2010-09-01 00:00:00
Title: JUDGMENT OF THE GENERAL COURT (Appeal Chamber) 1 September 2010.#Carina Skareby v European Commission.#Appeal — Civil service — Officials — Reports — Career development report — 2005 assessment procedure — Simplified report established for the period from January to September 2005 — Repetition of all the findings in the 2004 career development report partially annulled subsequent to the judgment under appeal.#Case T-91/09 P.

Reports of Cases
                         JUDGMENT OF THE GENERAL COURT (Appeal Chamber)
                                                1 September 2010
                                                 Case T-91/09 P
                                                 Carina Skareby
                                                        v
                                             European Commission
      (Appeal — Civil service — Officials — Reports — Career development report — 2005 assessment
        procedure — Simplified report established for the period from January to September 2005 —
    Repetition of all the findings in the 2004 career development report partially annulled subsequent to
                                           the judgment under appeal)
   Appeal:       against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (First Chamber)
                 of 15 December 2008 in Case F-34/07 Skareby v Commission [2008] ECR-SC I-A-1-477
                 and II-A-1-2637, seeking to have that judgment set aside.
   Held:         The judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (First Chamber) of
                 15 December 2008 in Case F-34/07 Skareby v Commission [2008] is set aside in so far as
                 the Civil Service Tribunal dismissed the complaint alleging the failure to assess the
                 productivity of Ms Carina Skareby for the period from January to September 2005. The
                 decision of 18 July 2006 establishing Ms Skareby’s career development report for the
                 period from 1 January to 31 December 2005 is set aside in so far as it concerns
                 paragraph 6.1 entitled ‘Productivity’. The remainder of the action brought before the
                 Civil Service Tribunal under case number F-34/07 is dismissed. The European
                 Commission is ordered to bear all the costs relating to the present proceedings and those
                 before the Civil Service Tribunal.
                                                    Summary
   1. Appeals — Pleas in law — Inadequate statement of reasons — Recourse by the Civil Service Tribunal
   to an implied statement of reasons — Lawfulness — Conditions
   (Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 36 and Annex I, Art. 7(1))
   2. Appeals — Pleas in law — Error of law
   (Art. 256 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Annex I, Art. 10(2))
   3. Officials — Actions — Subject-matter — Instruction to the administration — Inadmissibility
   (Art. 266 TFEU; Staff Regulations, Art. 91)
   1. While the Civil Service Tribunal is under an obligation to state the reasons on which its judgments
   are based, in accordance with Article 36 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, which is applicable to it
   pursuant to Article 7(1) of Annex I to that Statute, that obligation does not require it to provide an
EN
          ECLI:EU:T:2010:338                                                                                1
 ---pagebreak---                                               SUMMARY — CASE T-91/09 P
                                                SKAREBY v COMMISSION
account which covers exhaustively and one by one all the arguments put forward by the parties to the
dispute. The reasoning may therefore be implicit on condition that it enables the party concerned to
know why the court of first instance has not upheld his arguments and provides the appeal court with
sufficient material for it to exercise its power of review.
                                                                                                       (see para. 36)
          See:
          C-120/06 P and C-121/06 P FIAMM and FIAMM Technologies v Council and Commission [2008] ECR I-6513, para.
          96; C-431/07 P Bouygues and Bouygues Télécom v Commission [2009] ECR I-2665, para. 42
2. The Civil Service Tribunal committed an error of law in allowing the continuation, in a simplified
report, of an assessment which, in actual fact, did not exist because the Tribunal had partially set
aside the career development report for the previous year. The court of first instance was aware of the
risk it was taking in relying on that report, given that it drew attention to the fact that its judgment on
the lawfulness of that report was under appeal.
                                                                                                       (see para. 57)
3. The General Court has no jurisdiction to issue directions to the institutions or to make statements
or findings of principle. In accordance with Article 266 TFEU it is for the institution whose act has
been declared void to take the necessary measures to comply with the judgment annulling it.
                                                                                                       (see para. 70)
          See:
          T-76/03 Meister v OHIM [2004] ECR-SC I-A-325 and II-1477, para. 38
2                                                                                               ECLI:EU:T:2010:338