ORDER OF THE CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL
(First Chamber)

22 June 2011

Case F‑33/10

Giorgio Lebedef

v

European Commission

(Civil service — Officials — Appraisal for the year 2005 — Career development report — General provisions implementing Article 43 of the Staff Regulations — Report drawn up following the judgment in Case F‑36/07 — Manifest inadmissibility)

Application:      brought under Article 270 TFEU, applicable to the EAEC Treaty pursuant to Article 106a thereof, in which Mr Lebedef seeks annulment of his career development report for the period from 1 January to 31 December 2005, as drawn up by the Commission following the annulment of his previous career development report for the same period by the judgment of 7 May 2008 in Case F‑36/07 Lebedef v Commission.

Held:      The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible. The applicant is ordered to pay all the costs.

Summary

1.      Officials — Reports procedure — Career development report — Drawing up — Signing ‘approved’ — Consequences — Conclusion

(Staff Regulations, Art. 43)

2.      Officials — Actions — Prior administrative complaint — Time-limits — Point from which time starts to run — Notification — Definition — Notification of a career development report in the institution’s internal computer system — Consultation by official shown by system’s log

(Staff Regulations of Officials, Art. 90(2))

1.      The fact that an official signs his career development report ‘approved’ necessarily has the effect of concluding the procedure for drawing up that report.

The general implementing provisions for Article 43 of the Staff Regulations, adopted by the Commission, provide for a number of situations in which the career development report is concluded. It may be concluded either if the holder of the post approves the report straight away, or if he fails to respond within the period of 10 days provided for. In that respect, if an official considers his career development report unacceptable, but does not clearly indicate, within the 10-day period, whether he refuses to accept it, he places himself in a situation not covered by the general implementing provisions.

(see paras 29-30, 32, 33)

2.      For a decision to be duly notified, within the meaning of Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations, it must not only have been communicated to its addressee, but the addressee must also have been able to have effective knowledge of its content.

It follows that an official’s consultation of a career development report in his institution’s internal computer system, shown by the log of consultations of that report within the system, proves that the career development report was indeed notified to the person concerned. That is particularly true where the purpose of consulting the career development report in the internal computer system was, precisely, to sign it in order formally to conclude it.

Since the internal computer system is a protected system which the official accesses using a personal password, its reliability cannot be called into question on the basis of mere claims about the risk of data manipulation.

(see paras 38, 40, 41)

See:

15 June 1976, 5/76 Jänsch v Commission, para. 10

23 November 2005, T‑507/04 Ruiz Bravo-Villasante v Commission, para. 29; 19 October 2006, T‑311/04 Buendía Sierra v Commission, para. 121

25 April 2007, F‑59/06 Kerstens v Commission, paras 34 to 36