ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Fifth Chamber)
5 March 2004
Case T-281/03
Xanthippi Liakoura
v
Council of the European Union
(Officials – Staff Report – Action manifestly inadmissible or manifestly lacking foundation in law)
Full text in French II - 0000
Application: for annulment of certain assessments given in the applicant’s staff report for the period 1999-2001.
Held: The application is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible in part, and as manifestly lacking foundation in law for the remainder. The parties are ordered to bear their own costs.
Summary
1. Officials – Actions – Subject-matter – Direction to the administration – Inadmissibility
(Staff Regulations, Art. 91)
2. Officials – Actions – Interest in bringing proceedings – None
(Staff Regulations, Art. 91)
3. Officials – Reports procedure – Staff report – Discretion of the reporting officers – Judicial review – Limits
(Staff Regulations, Art. 43)
4. Officials – Reports procedure – Institution’s internal instructions on the reporting procedure – Legal effects
(Staff Regulations, Art. 43)
1. In the context of judicial review based on Article 91 of the Staff Regulations the Court of First Instance has no jurisdiction to issue orders to an institution, with the result that a claim for an institution to be ordered to include a translation in the staff report of an official must be declared inadmissible.
(see para. 22)
See: 192/88 Turner v Commission [1989] ECR 1017; T-19/97 Richter v Commission [1997] ECR-SC I-A-379 and II-1019, para. 60
2. An official has no further legal interest in bringing an action for annulment where, at the time when the action is brought, he has already achieved the objective which prompted him to initiate the pre-litigation procedure.
(see paras 36-38)
3. Assessors have the widest discretion when judging the work of persons upon whom they must report and it is not for the Court to interfere in their assessments save in the case of error or manifest exaggeration. The purpose of the optional comments accompanying the assessments in the analytical grid is to justify those assessments, in order to enable the official to determine whether they are well founded and, where appropriate, to enable the Court to effect its review.
(see paras 40-41)
See: 36/81, 37/81 and 218/81 Seton v Commission [1983] ECR 1789, para. 23; T-212/97 Hubert v Commission [1999] ECR-SC I-A-41 and II-185, para. 142
4. An institution’s guide to staff reports has the status of an internal instruction which is binding on the institution unless the latter chooses to disregard it by a reasoned and detailed decision.
(see para. 42)
See: 190/82 Blomefield v Commission [1983] ECR 3981, para. 20; T-63/89 Latham v Commission [1991] ECR II-19, para. 5; T-23/91 Maurissen v Court of Auditors [1992] ECR II-2377, para. 41 et seq.
Top