Choose the experimental features you want to try

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Document 61987CJ0343

Tuomion tiivistelmä

Keywords
Summary

Keywords

++++

1 . Officials - Actions - Prior administrative complaint - Decision rejecting the complaint of a candidate who was not promoted - Statement of reasons

( Staff Regulations, Art . 90(2 ) )

2 . Officials - Promotion - Consideration of comparative merits - Discretionary power of the administration - Limits - Observance of the conditions laid down in the vacancy notice

( Staff Regulations, Art . 45 )

3 . Officials - Actions - Claim for damages - Annulment of the illegal act in dispute - Whether annulment is appropriate reparation for non-material harm - Inappropriate - Harm separate from the harm caused by the annulled act

( Staff Regulations, Art . 91 )

Summary

1 . The appointing authority is not obliged to give reasons for a promotion decision in so far as they affect candidates who have not been promoted, but it is obliged to give reasons for its decision rejecting a complaint lodged under Article 90(2 ) of the Staff Regulations by a candidate who has not been promoted, since the reasons given for the rejection are deemed to be the same as those for the decision which was the subject of the complaint .

2 . Although the appointing authority, when promoting officials, has wide discretion in comparing the candidates' merits and reports, especially with a view to the post to be filled, it must exercise it within the self-imposed limits contained in the notice of vacancy .

3 . The annulment of an administrative act challenged by an official constitutes appropriate reparation for any non-material harm which he may have suffered .

Nevertheless, the annulment of the decisions appointing another candidate and rejecting the applicant' s candidature cannot in itself constitute appropriate reparation for the non-material harm which he suffered where an unfavourable but incorrect assessment of his abilities contained in the decision rejecting his complaint, which was offensive per se and was widely disseminated within the institution, caused him clear non-material harm independently of the decision rejecting his candidature .

Top