PB v SRB (Decision de non-reclassement) (Appeal - Civil service - Conditions of Employment of Other Servants - Members of the temporary staff - Judgment) [2026] EUECJ C-727/23P (29 January 2026)

PB v SRB (Decision de non-reclassement) (Appeal - Civil service - Conditions of Employment of Other Servants - Members of the temporary staff - Judgment) [2026] EUECJ C-727/23P (29 January 2026)

The SRB failed to fulfil its obligation to state reasons by not specifying whether PB's merits were lower or equal to those of reclassified staff, or the criteria used in case of equality. The General Court erred in law by allowing the SRB to supplement its reasoning during proceedings and by rejecting as inadmissible PB's plea alleging an error of assessment of his merits.

Citation
[2026] EUECJ C-727/23P
Parties
Appellant: PB; Respondent: Single Resolution Board (SRB)
Jurisdiction
European Union
Judgment Date
29 January 2026
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Final Judgment by Court of Justice After Setting Aside General Court Decision
Outcome
appeal allowed; judgment of General Court set aside; SRB decision annulled
Legal Topics
Staff Reclassification, Obligation to State Reasons, Rights of Defence, Principle of Correspondence Between Complaint and Action
EU Administrative Law Employment Law Staff Reclassification Obligation to State Reasons Rights of Defence Principle of Correspondence Between Complaint and Action

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

PB

Appellant

Single Resolution Board (SRB)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Final Judgment by Court of Justice After Setting Aside General Court Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the SRB failed to fulfil its obligation to state reasons in the decision not to reclassify PB
  2. 2 Whether the General Court erred in allowing the SRB to supplement reasons during proceedings
  3. 3 Whether the General Court infringed the principle of correspondence between the administrative complaint and the action

Ratio Decidendi

The SRB failed to fulfil its obligation to state reasons by not specifying whether PB's merits were lower or equal to those of reclassified staff, or the criteria used in case of equality. The General Court erred in law by allowing the SRB to supplement its reasoning during proceedings and by rejecting as inadmissible PB's plea alleging an error of assessment of his merits.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed; judgment of General Court set aside; SRB decision annulled

Orders

  • Judgment of General Court of 20 September 2023 set aside
  • Decision of SRB of 16 July 2021 not to reclassify PB annulled