EU Law Case T-854/16 Overview

Podcast

Play an AI-generated podcast conversation about this lesson

Questions and Answers

What basis did the appointing authority use to award points to the applicant for the years 2007 to 2009?

The 2006 staff report exclusively

Supervisory tasks mentioned in job description (correct)

Length of service in the position

Overall performance in the organization

Why did the appointing authority not grant additional points to the applicant for the year 2006?

All staff reports were deemed unsatisfactory

The staff report referred to the applicant as an assistant (correct)

The applicant did not perform any management tasks

The applicant failed to apply for additional points

What was the level of points awarded per year for the years 2005 to 2014?

No points were awarded

0.5 points

1 point

0.1 points (correct)

What type of evidence did the appointing authority consider to assess the level of responsibility?

Complexity of projects managed Signup and view all the answers

What inconsistency did the applicant claim regarding the assessment process?

Inconsistency with previous certification exercises Signup and view all the answers

What specific role was noted in the applicant's 2006 staff report?

Assistant Signup and view all the answers

What does the appointing authority's discretion relate to in the context of awarding points?

Performance assessment criteria Signup and view all the answers

Which aspect was NOT provided as a basis for the applicant's point assessment?

Managing simple tasks Signup and view all the answers

What was the main objective of the Internal Competition 2015/023?

To find candidates suitable for appointment to a post in function group AD. Signup and view all the answers

What score did Mr. João Miguel Barata originally receive in the certification exercise?

31.7 points Signup and view all the answers

What action did Mr. João Miguel Barata take after learning he was not selected?

He appealed to the Joint Certification Procedure Committee. Signup and view all the answers

Which criteria in the marking scheme were found to have errors after Mr. Barata's appeal?

Adaptability and management duties. Signup and view all the answers

How many candidates were selected to take part in the certification programme?

Seven candidates. Signup and view all the answers

When did Mr. João Miguel Barata submit his application for the competition?

7 October 2015 Signup and view all the answers

What was the result after the appointing authority revised Mr. Barata's score?

31.9 points Signup and view all the answers

What form of complaint did Mr. Barata lodge under Article 90(2)?

A complaint against the decision of the appointing authority. Signup and view all the answers

What is the significance of the appointing authority's discretion regarding the applicant's work as Local Security Officer?

It allows the authority to decide which duties are relevant for assessment. Signup and view all the answers

What does the appointing authority's decision to award 0.1 points for the 2012 to 2014 staff reports indicate?

A total of 0.3 points was accumulated from these reports. Signup and view all the answers

Why did the General Court refrain from reviewing the merits of the appointing authority's assessment?

It lacks the authority to overturn the appointing authority's decisions. Signup and view all the answers

What must be shown to prove a manifest error of assessment by the appointing authority?

Demonstration of a clear and significant error in judgment. Signup and view all the answers

How did the applicant fail to support the claim of a manifest error regarding duties performed outside normal duties?

By relying solely on past claims without new evidence. Signup and view all the answers

What was one of the reasons the appointing authority did not consider the applicant’s workload during the Portuguese Presidency of the EU as exceptional?

The authority classified it as part of normal duties. Signup and view all the answers

What is the implication of the appointing authority explaining how points were graded in the applicant's staff reports?

It absolves the authority from accusations of discrimination. Signup and view all the answers

What do the complaints based on a manifest error of assessment ultimately lead to?

A rejection of the first plea in law in its entirety. Signup and view all the answers

What factor contributed to the rejection of the applicant's argument regarding the 2005 staff report?

The 2005 staff report was significantly shorter than other reports. Signup and view all the answers

Under which criterion did the appointing authority award points to the 2005 staff report?

Level of responsibility Signup and view all the answers

What evidence did the applicant use to challenge the consideration of the 2004 staff report?

Consultation minutes from April 2016 Signup and view all the answers

What was indicated by the applicant in his consultation of the application file?

There were 92 pages of staff reports from 2005-2014. Signup and view all the answers

What mistake is highlighted regarding the 'Staff reports 2005-2014' reference?

It excluded the 2004 staff report by accident. Signup and view all the answers

How did the applicant verify the inclusion of the 2004 staff report in his application?

By initialling all the staff reports in the file Signup and view all the answers

What conclusion can be drawn about the attention given to the 2004 staff report?

It was considered as part of the overall evaluation. Signup and view all the answers

What geographical detail was problematic in the 2005 staff report?

It lacked opinions from the assessors. Signup and view all the answers

What was the main reason for dismissing the complaint regarding the 2004 and 2005 staff reports?

The appointing authority took both reports into account when assessing the applicant. Signup and view all the answers

Which criterion did the applicant claim was assessed with manifest errors?

Use of multiple skills. Signup and view all the answers

What does the applicant allege regarding the assessment of his professional experience?

Some key experiences were discriminatorily omitted. Signup and view all the answers

What significant error did the applicant highlight in the scoring process?

Evaluating senior positions too leniently. Signup and view all the answers

According to the applicant, which aspect of his qualifications received inadequate explanation for its omission?

Management duties. Signup and view all the answers

What conclusion can be drawn about the evaluation process used by the appointing authority?

It failed to recognize some important factors. Signup and view all the answers

What does COPAC refer to in this context?

The committee that assessed the applicant. Signup and view all the answers

What criteria did the applicant believe were improperly assessed by the appointing authority?

Duties performed outside normal responsibilities. Signup and view all the answers

What is the primary basis for assessing the applicants' potential for an administrator's function?

Predefined criteria in the call for applications Signup and view all the answers

What does the Parliament argue regarding the applicant's challenge of the assessment?

The applicant is replacing their own assessment for that of the authority. Signup and view all the answers

According to settled case-law, what discretion does the appointing authority have?

Wide discretion in assessing merits for promotions Signup and view all the answers

What must the European Union judicature do when reviewing the appointing authority's assessments?

Determine if the authority remained within reasonable bounds. Signup and view all the answers

What kind of judgments are not amenable to objective verification according to the content?

Complex value judgments Signup and view all the answers

What does Article 45(1) of the Staff Regulations entail regarding promotion procedures?

Comparative merits assessment conducted objectively Signup and view all the answers

When is the European Union judicature restricted from reviewing the merits of an official’s appraisal?

When value judgments are involved that cannot be objectively verified Signup and view all the answers

What type of skills are assessed as part of the evaluation for the administrator's function?

Multiple skills, adaptability, and management duties Signup and view all the answers

Study Notes

Case T-854/16

João Miguel Barata (applicant) challenged the European Parliament's decision not to include him in the 2015 training program.
Barata's application was made under Article 270 TFEU.
The 2015 certification exercise aimed to select officials for promotion to function group AD.
Barata's application was submitted on 7 October 2015.
The appointing authority informed Barata on 29 January 2016 that he did not make the final list.
He scored 31.7 points, while the selected candidates scored between 33.8 and 34.7 points.
Barata appealed, the appointing authority confirmed the initial decision on 29 March 2016.
Barata complained on 25 August 2016, but the complaint was rejected.
The action was brought on 5 December 2016.
The General Court (Second Chamber) reviewed the case on 5 March 2018.

Background to the Dispute

The initial competition notice (Internal Competition 2015/023) was published on 18 September 2015.
The applicant, Barata, applied for the 2015 certification exercise.
Barata's application was unsuccessful due to a low score (31.7 points).

Procedure

Barata brought a complaint under Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations.
The Secretary-General revised the score in 25 August 2016, but not enough to be included in the final list.
Barata filed his action for annulment of the decisions on 5 December 2016.

Legal Issues

Complaints surround manifest errors of assessment, equal treatment between candidates, and a violation of the principle of effective judicial protection.
The European Parliament's response was that various complaints were not sufficiently detailed, and that other grounds were not clear enough.

Arguments and Responses

Barata argued that the Parliament failed to consider his professional experience and that the assessment criteria were not applied fairly.
He also claimed manifest errors, breach of the principle of equal treatment and of the principle of effective protection and his rights to be heard.
The European Parliament disputed these claims, insisting its decision was appropriate and that the applicant's claims were unfounded or insufficiently detailed.

Studying That Suits You

Use AI to generate personalized quizzes and flashcards to suit your learning preferences.

Description

This quiz evaluates your understanding of the case T-854/16 involving João Miguel Barata's challenge against the European Parliament's decision. It explores the application process and the subsequent appeals related to the 2015 training program for officials. Test your knowledge of European Union law and case procedures.