This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62020TJ0599
Judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 20 October 2021.
YG v European Commission.
Civil service – Officials – Promotion – 2019 promotion exercise – Decision not to promote the applicant to grade AST 9 – Article 45 of the Staff Regulations – Comparison of merits – Manifest error of assessment – Duty to state reasons.
Case T-599/20.
Judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 20 October 2021.
YG v European Commission.
Civil service – Officials – Promotion – 2019 promotion exercise – Decision not to promote the applicant to grade AST 9 – Article 45 of the Staff Regulations – Comparison of merits – Manifest error of assessment – Duty to state reasons.
Case T-599/20.
Court reports – general
ECLI identifier: ECLI:EU:T:2021:709
Judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 20 October 2021 –
YG v Commission
(Case T‑599/20) ( 1 )
(Civil service – Officials – Promotion – 2019 promotion exercise – Decision not to promote the applicant to grade AST 9 – Article 45 of the Staff Regulations – Comparison of merits – Manifest error of assessment – Duty to state reasons)
1. |
Judicial proceedings – Action before the General Court – Possibility of a second exchange of pleadings – Discretion of the Court (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 83) (see paras 22, 23) |
2. |
Actions brought by officials – Action against a decision rejecting a complaint – Admissibility – Obligation to rule on claims directed against the decision rejecting the complaint – Claims lacking independent content or purely confirmatory decision – Absence (Staff Regulations of Officials, Arts 90 and 91) (see paras 26, 27) |
3. |
Officials – Promotion – Consideration of comparative merits – Administration’s discretion – Judicial review – Limits (Staff Regulations of Officials, Article 45) (see paras 31-33, 45, 68) |
4. |
Officials – Promotion – Consideration of comparative merits – Prior consideration of files within each directorate-general – Whether permissible – Subsequent consideration a matter for the promotions committee then the appointing authority – Scope (Staff Regulations of Officials, Article 45) (see paras 47-52, 58) |
5. |
Officials – Promotion – Consideration of comparative merits – Administration’s discretion – Evidence capable of being taken into consideration (Staff Regulations of Officials, Article 45) (see paras 57, 59-65, 86, 89) |
6. |
Officials – Promotion – Candidates eligible for promotion – Right to promotion – None (Staff Regulations of Officials, Article 45) (see para. 96) |
7. |
Officials – Promotion – Criteria – Merits – Taking account of seniority in the grade and consistency in performance – Subsidiary matter (Staff Regulations of Officials, Article 45) (see paras 97, 98) |
8. |
Officials – Promotion – Consideration of comparative merits – Administration’s discretion – Scope – Obligation to adopt a regulatory framework concerning the implementation of promotion procedures, in particular as regards officials who have moved between institutions – None (Staff Regulations of Officials, Article 45) (see paras 102-104) |
9. |
Officials – Promotion – Complaint by a candidate not promoted – Rejection decision – Obligation to state reasons – Scope (Art. 296 TFEU; Staff Regulations of Officials, Arts 25, second para., 45 and 90(2)) (see paras 106, 108, 114, 115, 120, 122, 124) |
Operative part
The Court:
1. |
Dismisses the action; |
2. |
Orders YG to pay the costs. |
( 1 ) OJ C 423, 7.12.2020.