JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Fourth Chamber)

5 March 1998

Case T-221/96

Immacolata Manzo-Tafaro

v

Commission of the European Communities

‛Officials — Refusal of promotion — Consideration of comparative merits — Taking into consideration of age and seniority’

Full text in French   II-307

Application for:

annulment of the decision of die Commission published on 9 April 1996 in so far as it refuses to promote the applicant to Grade C 1 in the context of the 1996 promotions exercise

Decision:

Application dismissed.

Abstract of the Judgment

The applicant was appointed to Grade C 2 on 1 January 1989. On the recommendation of Promotions Committee C (Promotions Committee) the appointing authority entered her on the list of officials most deserving of promotion to Grade C 1. However, she was not included on the list of officials promoted.

On 17 June 1996 the applicant submitted a complaint under Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communities (Staff Regulations) against the refusal to promote her. By decision of 25 September 1996 the Commission rejected her complaint, stating that:

‘[t]he appointing authority took into consideration not only the candidates' comparative merits but also their career profiles, namely their age and seniority in grade. Although the assessment of officials' merits is the decisive factor in determining promotion, the appointing authority may also take account of candidates' age and seniority in grade or service

...’

The applicant was promoted to Grade C 1 in the context of the 1997 promotions exercise.

Substance

The appointing authority has a wide discretion in assessing the merits to be taken into consideration in a decision on promotion under Article 45 of the Staff Regulations and, in this area, review by the Community judicature is confined to determining whether, having regard to the various considerations which have influenced the administration in making its assessment, it has remained within reasonable bounds and has not used its power in a manifestly incorrect way. The Court cannot therefore substitute its assessment of the qualifications and merits of the candidates for that of the appointing authority (paragraph 16).

See: T-262/94 Baiwir v Commission [1996] ECRSC II-739. para. 66

The requirement laid down in Article 45 of the Staff Regulations that the appointing authority must consider the comparative merits of candidates for promotion is an embodiment of both the principle of equal treatment of officials and the principle that they are entitled to reasonable career prospects. The assessment of those merits is therefore the decisive factor for all promotions, while the appointing authority may take candidates' age and seniority in grade or service into consideration only as a subsidiary matter (paragraph 17).

See: T-280/94 Lopes v Court of Justice [1996] ECRSC II-239, para. 138

In considering candidates' merits, as provided in Article 45 of the Staff Regulations, the appointing authority is not required to base itself exclusively on their staff reports but may also base its assessment on other aspects of their merits, such as other information relating to their administrative and personal position, which is such as to qualify the assessment made solely on the basis of the staff reports (paragraph 18).

See: T-89/91, T-21/92 and T-89/92 X v Commission [1993] ECR II-1235, paras 49 and 50; T-168/96 Patroni v Council [1997] ECRSC II-833, para. 35

The appointing authority did in fact consider the comparative merits, staff reports and age of the officials eligible for promotion to Grade C 1, in accordance with the requirements of Article 45(1) of the Staff Regulations (paragraphs 20 to 24).

Operative part:

The application is dismissed.