CELEX: 62004TJ0110
Language: en
Date: 2007-03-07
Title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) of 7 March 2007. # Paulo Sequeira Wandschneider v Commission of the European Communities. # Officials - Action for annulment - Statement of reasons - Action for damages. # Case T-110/04.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Third Chamber) 
      7 March 2007
      Case T-110/04
      Paulo Sequeira Wandschneider
      v
      Commission of the European Communities
      (Officials – Career development report – 2001/2002 appraisal – Action for annulment – Statement of reasons – Evaluation of merits – Evidence – Action for damages)
      Application: first, for annulment of the decision of 23 April 2003 containing the applicant’s career development report for the period
         1 July 2001 to 31 December 2002 and, second, damages.
      
      Held: The decision of 23 April 2003 containing the applicant’s career development report for the period 1 July 2001 to 31 December
         2002 is annulled. The action for damages is rejected. The Commission is ordered to pay all the costs.
      
      Summary
      1.      Officials – Reports procedure – Staff report – Drawing up – Delay 
      (Staff Regulations, Art. 43)
      2.      Officials – Reports procedure – Staff report – Change in the method of making the report 
      (Staff Regulations, Art. 43)
      3.      Officials – Reports procedure – Career development report 
      (Staff Regulations, Art. 43)
      4.      Officials – Rights and obligations – Obligation to reconcile the need for independence of mind with the hierarchical organisation
            of the civil service
      5.      Officials – Principles – Administration’s duty to have regard for the welfare of officials – Principle of sound administration
            
      1.      In the absence of exceptional circumstances, a staff report cannot be annulled on the sole ground that it was drawn up late.
         Although delay in drawing up a staff report is capable of giving the official concerned a right to a remedy, such delay cannot
         affect the validity of the staff report or, in consequence, justify the annulment thereof.
      
      (see para. 39)
      See: T‑278/01 den Hamer v Commission [2003] ECR-SC I‑6139 and II‑665, para. 32 and the case-law cited therein
      
      2.      Where an institution seeks to make finer distinctions in the analytical assessment of officials when reports are made on them
         by substituting one method of assessment for another, such a change in method necessarily implies that there can be no fixed
         correlation between the old and the new method of making the report. The change to the assessment criteria thus makes it particularly
         difficult to compare the old and new appraisals of an official.
      
      (see para. 104)
      See: T‑40/89 Turner v Commission [1990] ECR II‑55, summary publication, para. 23; T-165/04 Vounakis v Commission [2006] ECR-SC I-A-2-155 and II-A-2-735, para. 141
      
      3.      The administration is obliged to state in a sufficient and detailed manner the reasons on which the staff report is based.
         The general comments accompanying the analytical assessments must enable the official reported on to assess the validity of
         those assessments with full knowledge of the facts and, where appropriate, must enable the Community judicature to carry out
         its review, and it is important, to that end, for there to be consistency between the assessments and the comments justifying
         them.
      
      In the reporting system introduced by the Commission, it is the final assessments given in the career development report which
         are likely adversely to affect an official and for which a statement of reasons must therefore be given, and not each of the
         comments or assessments formulated in turn by the assessor, the countersigning officer, the Joint Evaluation Committee and
         the appeal assessor at each stage of the procedure.
      
      Furthermore, although hierarchical superiors cannot be expected to record, in reports of meetings, minutes, memoranda or other
         documents, any exceptionable or improper conduct or attitude on the part of an official, on the other hand, the absence of
         any specific evidence in support of a criticism or accusation concerning the conduct of the official reported on does not
         allow him to assess the truth of the allegations regarding his conduct or the merits of the assessments made of that conduct,
         nor does it allow the Court to carry out its review, so that it constitutes an infringement of the obligation to state reasons.
      
      (see paras 108, 110, 117)
      See: T‑23/91 Maurissen v Court of Auditors [1992] ECR II‑2377, para. 41; T‑187/01 Mellone v Commission [2002] ECR-SC I‑A‑81 and II‑389, para. 27 and the case-law cited therein; Vounakis v Commission, para. 84
      
      4.      The independence of mind which an official must demonstrate in the performance of certain tasks must not come into conflict
         with the fact that he forms part of a team with a hierarchical structure and is required, as an official, to follow the instructions
         of his hierarchical superiors except where otherwise provided by the Staff Regulations.
      
      (see para. 154)
      5.      The administration’s duty to have regard for the welfare of its servants, which reflects the balance of reciprocal rights
         and obligations established by the Staff Regulations in the relationship between the official authority and the civil servants,
         and the principle of sound administration combine to require that when the hierarchical authority takes a decision concerning
         the situation of an official, it should take into account not only the interests of the service but also those of the official
         concerned.
      
      (see paras 184-185)
      See: T‑207/95 Ibarra Gil v Commission [1997] ECR-SC I‑A‑13 and II‑31, para. 75; T‑93/96 Presle v Cedefop [1998] ECR-SC I‑A‑387 and II‑1111, para. 83; T‑11/03 Afari v ECB [2004] ECR-SC I‑A‑65 and II‑267, paras 42 and 217