Traduction de «réfère l’arrêt parlement » (Français → Anglais) :

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).

47. Calls on the Council to conduct and forward to Parliament and its competent committee the human rights fact sheets regarding third countries, as well as bi-annual assessments of each dialogue and consultation; calls on the Council to clarify the evaluation by explaining how the benchmarks are to be applied, setting time limits for attaining them and placing the emphasis on trends rather than on isolated results; stresses that should this information include confidential material, they should be forwarded to Parliament in accordance with the system described in paragraph 26 of this resolution;

This judgment has several questionable aspects but, accepting the judgment as it stands – since we have no choice, given that the court of Justice is the highest body qualified to interpret Community law – there is nothing to prevent this Parliament from declaring itself in favour of the proposed legal basis of Article 95 with Article 133, and introducing the amendments to which I have referred, which include the rapporteur’s amendments.

The Charter will not, of course, be written into the Treaty until after a special constitutional conference in 2004 but, as it receives the solemn signature of the Commission, the Council and Parliament, the European Court of Justice will already be acquiring a new source for its judgements, and the Court of Justice’s representative has, of course, already given notice that it will draw inspiration from the Charter.