CELEX: 62011TJ0058
Language: en
Date: 2011-11-15 00:00:00
Title: Judgment of the General Court (Appeal Chamber) of 15 November 2011. # Michel Nolin v European Commission. # Appeal - Civil service - Officials - Promotion - Withdrawal of merit points and priority points following a promotion on the basis of Article 29 of the Staff Regulations - Legal basis - Competence of the author of the act - Principle of non-discrimination. # Case T-58/11 P.

Reports of Cases
                         JUDGMENT OF THE GENERAL COURT (Appeal Chamber)
                                                15 November 2011
                                                  Case T-58/11 P
                                                  Michel Nolin
                                                         v
                                             European Commission
     (Appeal — Civil service — Officials — Promotion — Withdrawal of merit points and priority points
          following a promotion on the basis of Article 29 of the Staff Regulations — Legal basis —
                   Competence of the author of the act — Principle of non-discrimination)
   Appeal:       brought against the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (Third
                 Chamber) of 1 December 2010 in Case F-82/09 Nolin v Commission, seeking the setting
                 aside of that judgment.
   Held:         The appeal is dismissed. Mr Michel Nolin is ordered to bear his own costs and to pay
                 those incurred by the Commission in the appeal.
                                                     Summary
   1. Officials — Promotion — Procedure — Merit and priority points — Number of merit and priority
   points corresponding to the promotion threshold — Deduction from the total number of points
   accumulated by an official who has been promoted
   (Staff Regulations, Arts 29 and 45)
   2. Officials — Appointing authority — Powers — Exercise — Distribution of business — Exceptions —
   Sub-delegation — Lawfulness — Conditions
   (Staff Regulations, Art. 2)
   1. The term ‘promotion’ used in Article 29(1)(a)(iii) of the Staff Regulations must be read in the light
   of the definition set out in Article 45 of the Staff Regulations and must therefore be consistent with the
   implementing provisions adopted on that basis. Candidatures for promotion under Article 29(1)(a) of
   the Staff Regulations must be considered in accordance with the provisions of Article 45 of the Staff
   Regulations, which necessarily includes Article 2(3) of the general implementing provisions for
   Article 45 of the Staff Regulations, adopted by the Commission in 2004, which expressly provides
   that, following a promotion, the number of points corresponding to the promotion threshold must be
   deducted from the aggregate number of points accumulated by the promoted official.
   If that were not the case, officials promoted under Article 29 of the Staff Regulations would be able to
   use the large number of merit and priority points they had acquired in a lower grade in order to gain
   further promotion, which would contradict Article 45 of the Staff Regulations, according to which the
   merits of an official must be compared, for the purpose of promotion, with those of colleagues in the
EN
          ECLI:EU:T:2011:664                                                                                1
 ---pagebreak---                                                SUMMARY – CASE T-58/11 P
                                                  NOLIN v COMMISSION
same grade. Furthermore, those officials would have a greater chance than colleagues promoted solely
on the basis of Article 45 of the Staff Regulations of gaining further promotion rapidly, contrary to the
principle of equal treatment, which is a general principle of European Union law, enshrined in
Articles 20 and 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.
                                                                                                         (see paras 36, 37)
          See:
          C-550/07 P Akzo Nobel Chemicals and Akcros Chemicals v Commission and Others [2010] ECR I-8301, para. 54
          T-22/92 Weissenfels v Parliament [1993] ECR II-1095, para. 66; T-302/02 Kenny v Court of Justice [2003] ECR-SC
          I-A-235 and II-1137, para. 56
2. A sub-delegation or deviation from the criteria for division of the powers conferred by the Staff
Regulations on the appointing authority cannot render void an act done by the administration unless
such sub-delegation or deviation involves the possibility of adversely affecting one of the guarantees
given to officials by the Staff Regulations or the principles of good administration in staff
management. A decision taken by the Commission under Article 2 of the Staff Regulations involves a
distribution of business within the Commission’s services, rather than a rigid division of powers,
non-observance of which could entail the nullity of acts done outside the limits laid down.
                                                                                                             (see para. 49)
          See:
          T-23/96 De Persio v Commission [1998] ECR-SC I-A-483 and II-1413, para. 111; T-40/07 P and T-62/07 P de Brito
          Sequeira Carvalho v Commission and Commission v de Brito Sequeira Carvalho [2009] ECR-SC I-B-1-89
          and II-B-1-551, para. 155
2                                                                                                   ECLI:EU:T:2011:664