JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

(Third Chamber)

31 January 2007

Case T-236/05

Willem Aldershoff

v

Commission of the European Communities

(Career development report – 2003 appraisal exercise – Manifest error of assessment – Failure to state reasons – Right to be heard)

Application: for annulment of the applicant’s career development report for the 2003 appraisal exercise.

Held: The career development report of the applicant, Mr Willem Aldershoff, for the 2003 appraisal exercise is annulled. The Commission is ordered to bear its own costs and to pay those of the applicant.

Summary

1. Officials – Reports procedure – Career development report – Obligation to state reasons

(Staff Regulations, Art. 43)

2. Officials – Reports procedure – Career development report

(Staff Regulations, Art. 43)

1. Where, in the reports procedure established by the Commission, the Joint Evaluation Committee identifies special circumstances capable of calling into question the validity or merits of the initial assessment by the assessor or the countersigning officer, the appeal assessor must issue a reasoned opinion containing arguments giving adequate consideration to those special circumstances, and he is not released from that obligation merely by making an implied reference to the initial statement of reasons in the career development report. Such a possibility would have the effect of rendering the entire procedure before the Joint Evaluation Committee redundant.

(see paras 59, 61)

2. In view of the fact that assessors have a wide discretion when judging the work of persons whom they must assess, it is for the official applying for the annulment of his career development report to prove that there has been a manifest error of assessment.

Such an error exists where the performance of a head of unit has been assessed with reference to targets assigned on the basis of a staff increase that was not ultimately confirmed, where those targets were not revised downwards once it became clear that the recruitments announced would not take place.

(see paras 83, 90, 92)

See: T-43/04 Fardoom and Reinard v Commission [2005] ECR-SC I‑A‑329 and II‑1465, para. 79