CELEX: C1999/246/19
Language: en
Date: 1999-08-28 00:00:00
Title: Case C-174/99 P: Appeal brought on 10 May 1999 by the European Parliament against the judgment delivered on 9 March 1999 by the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-273/97 between Pierre Richard and European Parliament

C 246/10               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      28.8.1999
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          between officials must serve the objective set in Article 27 of
                                                                         the Staff Regulations of securing for the institution the services
The application is made on the basis of an arbitration clause            of officials of the highest standard of ability, efficiency and
and is founded on a standard contract governed by French                 integrity.
law.
Appeal brought on 10 May 1999 by the European Parlia-                    Appeal brought on 31 May 1999 by the Commission of
ment against the judgment delivered on 9 March 1999 by                   the European Communities against the judgment deliver-
the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the                  ed on 25 March 1999 by the Fourth Chamber of the Court
European Communities in Case T-273/97 between Pierre                     of First Instance of the European Communities in Case
               Richard and European Parliament                           T-76/98 between Claudine Hamptaux and the Com-
                                                                                     mission of the European Communities
                        (Case C-174/99 P)
                                                                                                 (Case C-207/99 P)
                         (1999/C 246/19)
                                                                                                  (1999/C 246/20)
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 9 March 1999
by the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the               An appeal against the judgment delivered on 25 March 1999
European Communities in Case T-273/97 between Pierre                     by the Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
Richard and European Parliament was brought before the                   European Communities in Case T-76/98 between Claudine
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 10 May 1999              Hamptaux and the Commission of the European Communities
by the European Parliament, represented by João Sant’Anna, of           was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
its Legal Service, acting as agent, assisted by Denis Waelbroeck,        Communities on 31 May 1999 by the Commission of the
of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg           European Communities, represented by Christine Berardis-
at the Secretariat General of the European Parliament, Mail and          Kayser and F. Duvieusart-Clotuche, of its Legal Service, acting
Registration Department, Tower Building, Office 017.                     as Agents, assisted by Denis Waelbroeck, lawyer, with an
                                                                         address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos
The appellant claims that the Court should:                              Gómez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchherg.
— set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 9             The appellant claims that the Court should:
     March 1999 in Case T-273/97 between Pierre Richard and
     the European Parliament;                                            — declare the appeal admissible and well-founded;
— consequently, refer the case back to the Court of First                — consequently, annul the contested judgment and dismiss
     Instance;                                                                the respondent’s claim;
— reserve a decision as to costs until final adjudication.               — alternatively, refer the case back, in consequence, to the
                                                                              Court of First Instance;
Pleas and main arguments
                                                                         — reserve the costs.
Breach of Community law, specifically of Article 29 of the
Staff Regulations: in the judgment under appeal, the Court of            Pleas in law and main arguments
First Instance fundamentally changed the interpretation of
Article 29(1) of the Staff Regulations. Instead of taking the            Contradiction in the grounds of judgment and error of law
view that Article 29(1) provides for a procedure to fill a vacant        as regards the promotion procedure carried out by the
post, with separate rules — it being a question for the                  Commission: the Court of First Instance erred — and contra-
appointing authority whether they enable the most suitable               dicted its own findings of fact — in concluding that, according
person to be found — the Court of First Instance espoused the            to the promotion procedure carried out by the Commission,
view that Article 29 provides for a series of four separate              officials whose names had already appeared on the list of those
stages or phases, each of which must be formally initiated and           most deserving of promotion in the previous year but had not
closed before the appointing authority can move on to the                been promoted would automatically be included on the list of
next. The Court also took the view that, as from the moment              most deserving officials. It is apparent from the facts accepted
when a suitable candidate is discovered during the first stage           by the Court of First Instance itself that the names of such
under Article 29, the institution is no longer entitled to extend        officials do not automatically feature on that list and that they
the range of choice available by considering possibilities under         are not automatically promoted, since the Commission checks
other rules, laid down in Article 29(1)) of the Staff Regulations.       in each individual case to ensure that the officials concerned
In so doing, the judgment under appeal contravenes two of                have not ceased to be ‘meritorious’, that is to say, that they are
the fundamental principles which must be respected in the                still deserving of promotion, which necessarily involves an
case of any appointment of officials to vacancies: (i) the               examination of their comparative merits.
principle laid down in Article 7(1) of the Staff Regulations,
according to which all appointments must be made exclusively
in the interests of the service; (ii) the principle that all choices