ORDER OF THE EUROPEAN UNION CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL

(First Chamber)

9 September 2014

Case F‑98/13

Rainer Moriarty

v

European Parliament

(Civil service — Promotion — 2012 promotion procedure — Non-inclusion in the list of promoted officials — Application manifestly lacking any legal basis)

Application:      under Article 270 TFEU, applicable to the EAEC Treaty pursuant to Article 106a thereof, in which Mr Moriarty seeks annulment of the decision of the European Parliament not to promote him in the 2012 promotion procedure and of the decision to promote another official.

Held:      Mr Moriarty’s action is dismissed as manifestly lacking any legal basis. Mr Moriarty is to bear his own costs and is ordered to pay the costs incurred by the European Parliament.

Summary

Officials — Promotion — Consideration of comparative merits — Administration’s discretion — Factors which may be taken into consideration — Attainment of reference threshold in the previous promotion procedure — Significance

(Staff Regulations, Art. 45)

Although the administration possesses, for the purpose of considering the comparative merits of officials who are candidates for promotion, a wide discretion, that does not exempt the administration from its obligation to examine carefully and impartially all the relevant factors in a particular case. In particular, the fact that an official had already reached the reference threshold in the previous promotion procedure constitutes a relevant merit factor, provided that the official has not lost merit since the promotion procedure in which he was proposed for promotion. However, the administration cannot promote an official solely on the ground that he has reached the reference threshold.

Moreover, the award of a third merit point, indicating exceptional merits in a given year, may be an important factor in the subsequent comparative assessment of the merits of officials in the same grade with a view to their promotion.

(see paras 24, 31, 33)

See:

judgment in Casini v Commission, T‑132/03, EU:T:2005:324, para. 69

judgments in Berrisford v Commission, F‑107/06, EU:F:2007:172, para 72 et seq.; Hau v Parliament, F‑125/07, EU:F:2009:131, para. 27; Barbin v Parliament, F‑68/09, EU:F:2011:11, para. 83; and Mantzouratos v Parliament, F‑64/10, EU:F:2011:72, para. 66