Choose the experimental features you want to try

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.

    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.

    Top