CELEX: 62006FJ0108
Language: en
Date: 2007-12-13 00:00:00
Title: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 13 December 2007. # Tamara Diomede Basili v Commission of the European Communities. # Public service - Officials - Action for annulment. # Case F-108/06.

JUDGMENT OF THE CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL (Second Chamber)
      13 December 2007 
      Case F-108/06
      Tamara Diomede Basili
      v
      Commission of the European Communities 
      (Civil service – Officials – Assessment – Career development report – 2004 appraisal – Action for annulment – Staff representatives – Opinion of the ad hoc group)
      Application: brought under Articles 236 EC and 152 EA, in which Mrs Diomede Basili seeks annulment of her career development report for
         the period from 1 January to 31 December 2004.
      
      Held: The action is dismissed. Each party is ordered to bear its own costs.
      
      Summary
      1.      Officials – Reports procedure – Career development report – Drawing up – Officials with staff representation duties 
      (Staff Regulations, Annex II, Art. 1, sixth para.)
      2.      Officials – Reports procedure – Career development report – Drawing up
      1.      Although, under Article 6(3)(c) of the General Provisions for Implementing Article 43 of the Staff Regulations, adopted by
         the Commission, reporting officers and countersigning officers are required to consult the ad hoc group and take account of
         its opinion when drawing up the career development report of an official performing staff representation activities, they
         are not obliged to follow that opinion. If they do not, they must then explain the reasons which led them to depart from it.
      
      Moreover, it does not follow from any provision of the Staff Regulations or the General Implementing Provisions that the obligation
         for the reporting officer and the countersigning officer to take account of the opinion of the ad hoc group requires them
         to award an official special points in addition to those intended to assess the work he has done in his post.
      
      Nor is such a requirement implied by the last paragraph of Article 1 of Annex II to the Staff Regulations, which states that
         the fact of performing the duties of a staff representative is not to be prejudicial to the official concerned.
      
      (see paras 37-38, 47)
      See:
      T-43/04 Fardoom and Reinard v Commission [2005] ECR‑SC I‑A‑329 and II‑1465, para. 87; T-95/04 Lavagnoli v Commission [2006] ECR-SC I-A-2-121 and II-A-2-569, para. 84
      
      2.      The rules of the General Provisions for Implementing Article 43 of the Staff Regulations, adopted by the Commission, concerning
         the division of powers in the performance of the duties of reporting officer, countersigning officer and appeal assessor respectively
         constitute internal organisational rules within an institution. A deviation from those rules cannot render void an act done
         by the administration unless such 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.
      
      (see para. 61)
      See:
      46/72 De Greef v Commission [1973] ECR 543, para. 18; 49/72 Drescig v Commission [1973] ECR 565, para. 10
      
      T-118/04 and T-134/04 Caló v Commission [2007] ECR-SC I‑A‑2-0000 and II‑A‑2‑0000, paras 67 and 68