JUDGMENT OF 19. 2. 1981 — JOINED CASES 122 AND 123/79 SCHIAVO v COUNCIL

In Joined Cases 122 and 123/79

THE COURT (Second Chamber) composed of: P. Pescatore, President of Chamber, A. Touffait and O. Due, Judges, Advocate General: G. Reischl Registrar: H. A. Rühi, Principal Administrator

gives the following

JUDGMENT

Facts and Issues

I — Facts and written procedure

II — Conclusions of the parties

1. In Case 122/79

2. In Case 123/79 (Periodic report)

III — Summary of the submissions and arguments of the parties

A — In Case 123/79 (Periodic report)

1. Admissibility

The Council contends:

To which the applicant replies:

In its defence the Council observes:

2. Substance

The applicant states:

The Council for its part replies:

B — In Case 122/79 (Promotion)

1. Admissibility

2. Substance

(a) In ber application the applicant complains that the contested decision:

(b) In its defence the Council replies:

(c) In her reply the applicant states that she is astonished, first, that she was excluded from the action on promotions although she was proposed for promotion on 16 September 1976 by the head of the Italian Division; secondly, that her second reporting officer took two and a half months to express his opinion; thirdly, that the Council claims in its defence that the two bodies (the Advisory Committee and the Reports Committee) are independent and that resort may be had to photocopying although that is contrary to the secret and confidential nature of the personal files of the staff; fourthly, that the Council, which felt itself obliged to state that the decisions concerning promotion were taken after the opinion of the Reports Committee, has incriminated itself by this excuse; these factors firmly establish that in excluding her from promotion the contested decisions regarding promotion disregarded all the facts and assessments relating to the applicant, and thus excluded her from the action taken with regard to promotions.

(d) Finally, in its rejoinder the Council claims:

IV — Oral procedure

Decision

The background to the dispute

The admissibility of the two applications

The claim for the annulment of the periodic report

The claim for the annulment of the decisions on promotion

Costs

1 Judgment of 21 February 1974 in Joined Cases 15 to 33/73 et seq. Schots, née Korlner [1974] ECR 177; judgment of 22 October 1975 in Case 9/75 Meyer-Burckhardt [1975] ECR 1171 and judgment of 12 February 1977 in Case 48/76 Riinan [1977] ECR 291.

2 Judgment of 4 July 1963 in Case 24/62 Germany v Commission [1963] ECR 63; judgment of 12 October 1978 in Case 86/77 Kuno Ditlerich [1978] ECR 1855; judgment of 27 October 1977 in Case 121/76 Moli [1977] ECR 1971.

3 For example the judgment of 13 April 1978 in Case 75/77 Molkt [1978) ECR 897.

4 Cf. judgment of 30 October 1974 in Case 188/73 Grassi [1974] ECR 1099; judgment of 19 March 1964 in Case 27/63 Raponi [1964] ECR 129; judgment of 9 June 1964 in Cases 94 and 96/63 Bemusset [1964] ECR 297; judgment of 31 March 1965 in Cases 12 and 29/64 Ley [1965] ECR 107; judgment of 8 July 1965 in Cases 27 and 30/64 Forni [1965] ECR 481; judgment of 13 July 1972 in Case 90/71 Bernardi [1972] ECR 603.