CELEX: 62007FJ0081
Language: en
Date: 2008-10-08
Title: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 8 October 2008. # Florence Barbin v European Parliament. # Public service - Officials - Promotion. # Case F-81/07.

JUDGMENT OF THE CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL (Third Chamber)
      8 October 2008 
      Case F-81/07
      Florence Barbin
      v
      European Parliament
      (Civil service – Officials – Promotion – 2006 promotion procedure – Consideration of comparative merits)
      Application: brought under Articles 236 EC and 152 EA, in which Ms Barbin seeks annulment of the decision of the European Parliament not
         to promote her to grade AD 12 pursuant to the 2006 promotion procedure.
      
      Held: The decision of the European Parliament of 20 November 2006 not to promote the applicant pursuant to the 2006 promotion procedure
         is annulled. The Parliament is ordered to pay the costs.
      
      Summary
      Officials – Promotion – Complaint by an unsuccessful promotion candidate – Decision to reject – Total absence of statement
            of reasons
      (Staff Regulations, Arts 25, second para., 45 and 90(2))
      Although the appointing authority is not under an obligation to provide unsuccessful candidates with reasons for its decision
         on promotion, it must, on the other hand, give reasons for its decision to reject a complaint lodged by an official who has
         not been promoted, the statement of grounds for such a decision being deemed to be the same as the statement of reasons for
         the decision against which the complaint was directed, so that consideration of the grounds of the one overlaps with that
         of the other.
      
      The total absence of a statement of reasons before an action is brought cannot be remedied by explanations provided by the
         appointing authority after the action has been initiated. At that stage, such explanations no longer fulfil their function,
         which is to enable the party concerned to determine whether it is appropriate to bring an action and to enable the court to
         check the correctness of the reasons stated. Moreover, the possibility of remedying the total absence of a statement of reasons
         after an action has been initiated would prejudice the rights of the defence, since the applicant would be deprived of the
         opportunity to present his pleas against the statement of reasons, of which he would have no knowledge until after the action
         was brought. The principle that parties should be equal before the Community judicature would be undermined.
      
      (see paras 27-28)
      See:
      188/73 Grassi v Council [1974] ECR 1099, para. 13; 121/76 Moli v Commission [1977] ECR 1971, para. 12; 75/77 Mollet v Commission [1978] ECR 897, para. 12; 195/80 Michel v Parliament [1981] ECR 2861, para. 22; C-343/87 Culin v Commission [1990] ECR I‑225, paras 13 and 15; C-150/03 P Hectors v Parliament [2004] ECR I‑8691, para. 50
      
      T-52/90 Volger v Parliament [1992] ECR II‑121, paras 40 and 41; T-117/01 Roman Parra v Commission [2002] ECR-SC I-A-27 and II‑121, para. 32; T-66/05 Sack v Commission [2007] ECR-SC I-A-0000, para. 66, currently the subject of an appeal before the Court of Justice, C‑38/08 P