ORDER OF THE GENERAL COURT (Appeal Chamber)
26 May 2014
Case T‑288/13 P
AK
v
European Commission
(Appeal — Civil service — Officials — Reports procedure — Career development report — Appraisal for the years 2001/2002, 2004, 2005 and 2008 — Delay in drawing up career development reports — Non-material damage — Loss of opportunity for promotion — Appeal in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded)
Appeal: against the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 13 March 2013 in Case F‑91/10 AK v Commission [2013] ECR-SC, seeking to have that judgment set aside.
Held: The appeal is dismissed. AK is to bear his own costs and is ordered to pay those incurred by the European Commission in the present proceedings.
Summary
1. Officials — Reports procedure — Career development report — Drawing up — Delay — Maladministration giving rise to non-material damage — Conditions — Official retired due to invalidity — Extent of damage
(Staff Regulations, Art. 43)
2. Officials — Promotion — Consideration of comparative merits — Administration’s discretion — Scope — Taking account of staff reports — Other factors which may be taken into consideration
(Staff Regulations, Art. 45(1))
3. Appeals — Pleas in law — Inadequate statement of reasons — Criteria adopted by the Civil Service Tribunal in order to fix the amount of the compensation awarded for damage suffered — Review by the General Court
1. In order to determine the non-material damage suffered by an official as a result of the absence of the career development reports at issue, the Civil Service Tribunal was entitled to hold and did not err in law in finding that the official’s uncertainty and anxiety about his professional future did not enable it to conclude that he suffered actual and certain non-material damage after his retirement due to invalidity, since, from that occurrence onwards, his professional future was now merely hypothetical. After his retirement, career development reports played no further part in the development of his career, and the damage for which compensation is sought must be actual and certain.
(see paras 42, 45)
See:
C‑348/06 P Commission v Girardot [2008] ECR I‑833, para. 54
T‑166/04 C v Commission [2007] ECR-SC I‑A‑2-9 and II‑A‑2-49, para. 67 and the case-law cited therein
2. Under Article 45(1) of the Staff Regulations, the promotion of an official is exclusively by selection from among officials who have completed a minimum of two years in their grade after consideration of the comparative merits of the officials eligible for promotion. When considering comparative merits, the appointing authority must in particular take account of the reports on the officials, the use of languages in the execution of their duties other than the language for which they have produced evidence of thorough knowledge in accordance with Article 28(f) of the Staff Regulations and, where appropriate, the level of responsibilities exercised by them. In the absence of career development reports, there is nothing to stop an official from bringing before the Civil Service Tribunal specific matters of law or of fact capable of demonstrating his chances of promotion. Furthermore, it is clear from Article 45(1) of the Staff Regulations that the consideration of comparative merits is conducted not only on the basis of the reports on the officials, but also, in particular, on two other criteria.
(see para. 50)
3. When the Civil Service Tribunal has found that there is damage, it is for the Tribunal alone to assess, within the confines of the claim, how and to what extent the reparation for the damage should be provided, subject to the qualification that in order for the General Court to be able to review the judgments of the Tribunal, those judgments must be sufficiently reasoned and, as regards the quantification of damage, they must state the criteria taken into account for the determination of the amount decided upon.
(see para. 57)
See:
T‑404/06 P ETF v Landgren [2009] ECR II‑2841, para. 241 and the case-law cited therein