Helmut Muellers v Economic and Social Committee of the European Communities. (Officials ) [1990] EUECJ C-81/88 (7 February 1990)

Helmut Muellers v Economic and Social Committee of the European Communities. (Officials ) [1990] EUECJ C-81/88 (7 February 1990)

The Court held that the decisions regarding the filling of the post, the applicant's non-selection, and his transfer were in accordance with the Staff Regulations, that the comparative examination of merits was properly conducted, and that there was no obligation to provide reasons for promotion decisions. The...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[1990] EUECJ C-81/88
Parties
Applicant: Helmut Muellers; Defendant: Economic and Social Committee of the European Communities
Jurisdiction
European Union
Procedural Posture
Application for Annulment / Final Judgment
Outcome
application dismissed
Legal Topics
Officials, Promotion, Recruitment, Staff Regulations, Judicial Review
European Union Law Employment Law Officials Promotion Recruitment Staff Regulations Judicial Review

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Helmut Muellers

Applicant

Economic and Social Committee of the European Communities

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Application for Annulment / Final Judgment

  1. 1 Whether the decisions regarding the filling of the vacant post of Head of the Transport and Communications Division were lawful under the Staff Regulations
  2. 2 Whether the applicant's non-selection and subsequent transfer were lawful
  3. 3 Whether reasons for promotion decisions must be given

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that the decisions regarding the filling of the post, the applicant's non-selection, and his transfer were in accordance with the Staff Regulations, that the comparative examination of merits was properly conducted, and that there was no obligation to provide reasons for promotion decisions. The appointing authority's discretion was not exercised in a manifestly erroneous manner.

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • Each party to bear its own costs