XH v Commission (Civil service - Officials - Promotion - Judgment) [2024] EUECJ T-353/22 (07 February 2024)

XH v Commission (Civil service - Officials - Promotion - Judgment) [2024] EUECJ T-353/22 (07 February 2024)

The Court found that the explicit decision rejecting the applicant's complaint provided adequate and timely reasoning. The interim probation report was not considered in the 2021 promotion exercise, and the comparison of merits was conducted fairly based on relevant appraisal reports. No manifest error or procedural...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2024] EUECJ T-353/22
Parties
Applicant: XH; Respondent: European Commission
Jurisdiction
European Union
Judgment Date
07 February 2024
Procedural Posture
Annulment and Damages Action Under Article 270 TFEU / Judgment on Merits
Outcome
Action dismissed
Legal Topics
Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union, Promotion Procedures, Judicial Review of Administrative Decisions, Obligation to State Reasons, Conflict of Interest, Non Material and Material Damages
European Union Law Employment Law Administrative Law Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union Promotion Procedures Judicial Review of Administrative Decisions Obligation to State Reasons Conflict of Interest +1 more

Source-derived case record

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 3 Authorities cited 31 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XH

Applicant

European Commission

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Annulment and Damages Action Under Article 270 TFEU / Judgment on Merits

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the decision not to promote the applicant was unlawful due to procedural irregularities, lack of fair comparison of merits, or failure to comply with prior judgments
  2. 2 Whether the applicant is entitled to compensation for alleged non-material and material damage

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found that the explicit decision rejecting the applicant's complaint provided adequate and timely reasoning. The interim probation report was not considered in the 2021 promotion exercise, and the comparison of merits was conducted fairly based on relevant appraisal reports. No manifest error or procedural irregularity was established. The applicant failed to prove any unlawful conduct, actual damage, or causal link justifying compensation. The action was dismissed in its entirety.

Court Disposition

Action dismissed

Orders

  • The action is dismissed in its entirety.
  • Applicant to bear her own costs and pay those incurred by the Commission.