This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62008FJ0038
Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 17 February 2009. # Amerigo Liotti v Commission of the European Communities. # Public service - Official. # Case F-38/08.
Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 17 February 2009.
Amerigo Liotti v Commission of the European Communities.
Public service - Official.
Case F-38/08.
Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 17 February 2009.
Amerigo Liotti v Commission of the European Communities.
Public service - Official.
Case F-38/08.
European Court Reports – Staff Cases 2009 I-A-1-00025; II-A-1-00103
ECLI identifier: ECLI:EU:F:2009:13
JUDGMENT OF THE CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL (First Chamber)
17 February 2009
Case F-38/08
Amerigo Liotti
v
Commission of the European Communities
(Civil service – Officials – Appraisal – Career development report – 2006 appraisal procedure – Appraisal rules applied by the reporting officers)
Application: brought under Articles 236 EC and 152 EA, in which Mr Liotti seeks annulment of his career development report for the period from 1 January to 31 December 2006.
Held: The applicant’s career development report for the period from 1 January to 31 December 2006 is annulled. The Commission is ordered to pay the costs.
Summary
Officials – Reports procedure – Career development report – General implementing provisions establishing common appraisal rules for each directorate-general
(Staff Regulations, Art. 43)
The infringement, in drawing up an official’s career development report, of the general implementing provisions for Article 43 of the Staff Regulations adopted by the institution concerned, according to which common appraisal rules for each directorate-general must be taken into account in order to make it easier to compare the merits of officials, to harmonise the merit marks suggested by the reporting officers and to ensure consistent appraisal within a directorate-general, constitutes an infringement of a substantive procedural requirement. Failure to apply those rules or to take them sufficiently into account thus renders the official’s appraisal substantively flawed and justifies its annulment.
(see paras 46-47)