Keywords
Summary

Keywords

++++

1. Officials ° Decision adversely affecting an official ° Rejection of candidature ° Obligation to provide a statement of reasons at the latest by the stage of the rejection of the complaint ° Scope ° Inadequate statement of reasons ° Rectification in the course of the judicial proceedings

(Staff Regulations, Art. 90(2))

2. Officials ° Promotion ° Consideration of comparative merits ° Taking periodical reports into account ° Incomplete personal file ° Irregularity may be compensated for by the existence of other information relating to the candidate' s merits

(Staff Regulations, Arts 43 and 45)

3. Officials ° Vacant posts ° Filling of post by promotion or transfer ° Examination of candidates' comparative merits ° Discretion of the administration ° Review by the Court ° Limits

(Staff Regulations, Arts 29(1)(a) and 45)

Summary

1. In the case of a decision rejecting a candidature for a vacant post, the appointing authority is bound, at the very least, to give a statement of reasons in the decision rejecting the candidate' s complaint.

In the case of a procedure to fill a post by way of transfer, the statement of reasons may be confined to the fulfilment of the legal conditions on which the validity of the procedure depends under the Staff Regulations. However, where there is an individual, relevant reason for rejecting a candidate, general and purely procedural reasons for rejecting the complaint are insufficient.

That inadequate statement of reasons may, however, be compensated for by additional information provided by the administration during the proceedings, thereby enabling the person concerned to assess the relevance of the reason which led to his candidature' s being rejected and the Court to carry out its review of legality. In those circumstances, a plea alleging an inadequate statement of reasons is rendered irrelevant.

2. The periodical report is a an essential criterion of assessment each time the official' s career is taken into consideration by the administration. A promotion procedure is tainted by illegality in so far as the appointing authority has not been able to consider the comparative merits of the candidates because there has been considerable delay on the part of the administration in drawing up the periodical reports of one or more of them.

However, the absence of periodic reports must not paralyse promotion or transfer procedures, which are necessary in the interests of the service. The appointing authority is not, therefore, obliged to postpone its promotion or transfer decisions, but may seek alternative methods capable of compensating for the absence of the periodical reports.

Where an interview conducted by the administration with each candidate enabled a direct, personal assessment to be made of the merits of each of them from the point of view of the knowledge required for the vacant post, it should be considered that the absence of periodical reports from a candidate' s file has been compensated for and could not therefore have had a decisive impact on the procedure for filling the post.

3. The appointing authority enjoys a wide discretion as far as consideration of the comparative merits of the candidates for transfer or promotion under Article 29(1)(a) of the Staff Regulations is concerned and the review by the Court must be confined to whether it has exercised its power in a manifestly erroneous manner.