JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Fourth Chamber)

5 July 2000

Case T-111/99

Ignacio Samper

v

European Parliament

‛Officials — Publication of a new vacancy notice following annulment of an appointment decision — Reconstruction of career — Duty to have regard for the welfare of officials — Interest of the service — Misuse of powers — Refusal to grant a temporary posting’

Full text in French   II-611

Application for:

annulment of Vacancy Notice No 8675 for the post of Head of Division in the Madrid Information Office and of the procedure for filling the post by way of transfer or promotion advertised by that notice.

Held:

Application dismissed. The Parliament to pay all the costs.

Summary

1. Procedure — Application initiating proceedings — Procedural requirements — Summary of the pleas in law on which the application is based — Similar requirements for submissions in support of a plea in law

   (Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 44(1))

2. Officials — Administration's duty to have regard for the welfare of officials — Scope — Filling of vacant posts — Judicial review — Limits

3. Officials — Recruitment — Procedures — Choice — Discretion of the administration

   (Staff Regulations, Art. 29)

4. Officials — Appeals — Fleas in law — Misuse of powers — Concept

1.  Under Article 44(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, the application initiating proceedings must contain a summary of the pleas in law on which it is based. That summary must be sufficiently clear and precise to enable the defendant to prepare its defence and the Court to rule on the action, if necessary without any other supporting information. The application must, therefore, specify the nature of the grounds on which it is based and, accordingly, a mere abstract statement of the grounds does not satisfy the requirements of the Rules of Procedure. Similar requirements are called for where a submission is made in support of a plea in law.

   (see para. 27)

   See: T-352/94 Mo och Domsjö v Commission [1998] ECR II-1989

2.  The administration's duty to have regard to the welfare of officials reflects the balance of reciprocal rights and obligations established by the Staff Regulations in the relationship between the administration and public servants. That duty means, in particular, that when it adopts a decision concerning the situation of an official, the appointing authority must take into consideration all the factors which may affect its decision and that, when doing so, it should take into account not only the interests of the service but also those of the official concerned.

   When filling vacant posts, the requirements of the duty to have regard for the welfare of officials cannot prevent the appointing authority from adopting the measures which it considers necessary in the interest of the service, since each post must be filled primarily on the basis of that interest. In view of the extent of the discretion enjoyed by the institutions when assessing the interest of the service, the Court's review must be confined to the question whether the appointing authority has remained within reasonable bounds and has not used its powers in a manifestly incorrect manner.

   (see paras 43 and 44)

   See: T-562/93 Obst v Commission [1995] ECRSC I-A-247 and II-737, paras 69 and 70; Joined Cases T-112/96 and T-115/96 Séché v Commission [1999] ECRSC I-A-115 and II-623, paras 147, 148 and 149

3.  It is for the appointing authority to choose, in accordance with the order of preference set out in Article 29 of the Staff Regulations, the most appropriate method of filling a vacant post. To that end, the appointing authority enjoys a wide discretion for the purpose of finding candidates with the highest standard of ability, efficiency and integrity. Accordingly, if examination of the list of eligible candidates by way of promotion or transfer within the institution reveals that a candidate, even if he is the only one, fully meets the requirements of the post at issue, that authority is not required to organise an internal competition.

   (see para. 56)

   See: 135/87 Vlacliou v Court of Auditors [1988] ECR 2901, para. 23

4.  The concept of misuse of powers applies to cases where an administrative authority has used its powers for a purpose other than that for which they were conferred on it. A decision may be vitiated by misuse of powers only if it appears, on the basis of objective, relevant and consistent evidence, to have been taken for purposes other than those stated.

   (see para. 64)

   See: T-35/96 Rasmussen v Commission [1997] ECRSC I-A-61 and II-187, para. 70; Séché v Commission, cited above, para. 139