Traduction de «well-reasoned decision » (Anglais → Français) :

The Commission shall send to the Member States and the competent committee of the European Parliament the notifications received under Articles 3 and 7 and, if necessary, the accompanying documents, as well as all its reasoned decisions under Articles 5, 5a, 7 and 7a, subject to the requirements of confidentiality.

8. Considers that the abovementioned legal reasoning as well as the established practice of adopting individual decisions on discharge in respect of each Union institution and body support this interpretation and, in addition, the decisions on discharge need to be adopted separately for operational reasons in order to avoid discontinuity and disruption of Union action;

Those conditions do not infringe Article 11(1) of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants or the second sentence of Article 25 of the Staff Regulations since, although those provisions imply, in principle, that an individual decision adversely affecting a staff member must set out all the reasons for which it was adopted, in order to allow the person concerned to ascertain whether it is well founded and to make it possible for the Union judicature to review its lawfulness, where appropriate, the fact remains that awareness, by the staff member concerned, of the context in which a decision was adopted may constitute a statement of ...[+++]reasons for that decision.

For the purposes of the present appeal, it must first be stated that the Civil Service Tribunal recalled that any decision relating to a specific individual which is taken under the Staff Regulations and adversely affects that person must state the reasons on which it is based, on the one hand, to enable the competent court to review the legality of the decision and, on the other, to provide the person concerned with the information necessary to allow him to ascertain whether or not the decision is well founded and to enable him to decide whether to bring an action. It added, however, referring to Case C‑254/95 P Parliament v Innamorati ...[+++][1996] ECR I‑3423, paragraphs 24 to 28, that, as far as concerns decisions taken by a selection board in a competition, the obligation to state reasons must be reconciled with observance of the secrecy surrounding the proceedings of selection boards by virtue of Article 6 of Annex III to the Staff Regulations, secrecy which was instituted with a view to guaranteeing the independence of selection boards and the objectivity of their proceedings. Thus, observance of this secrecy precludes both disclosure of the attitudes adopted by individual members of selection boards and disclosure of any factors relating to individual or comparative assessments of candidates and that the obligation to state the reasons on which decisions of a selection board in a competition are based must take account of the nature of the proceedings concerned, which, at the stage of examination of the abilities of the candidates, are primarily comparative in character and accordingly covered by the secrecy inherent in those proceedings (paragraphs 30 and 31 of the judgment under appeal).

One of the reasons why people cannot fathom the EU system is also, of course, the utterly hopeless way in which we have organised ourselves, with a physical presence in Luxembourg, Brussels and Strasbourg, and I think one might well ask whether it is particularly appropriate for the Ombudsman to be located here in Strasbourg, though this is, of course, also partly due to the Ombudsman’s own decision. I do not think it is appropriate.

The considerable costs of IT for this transaction business require well reasoned strategic decisions which are to be taken when considering the developments of the infrastructure environment (standards, technical platforms etc) and possibilities for co-operation.