1 . Where an official has submitted a complaint against his staff report on the ground of analytical assessments lower than those in the preceding report, the letter whereby the appointing authority informs him that it does not intend to improve the said assessments but proposes to remedy the deficiency in the statement of the reasons on which the report is based constitutes an express rejection of the complaint . That express rejection, after the implied rejection of the complaint but within the period for bringing proceedings which the latter rejection gives rise, causes a new period to begin to run by virtue of Article 91(3 ) of the Staff Regulations .
2.In the context of judicial review based on Article 91 of the Staff Regulations the Court has no jurisdiction to issue orders, with the result that a claim for an institution to be ordered to carry out an undertaking to amend the staff report of an official must be declared inadmissible . An obligation to that effect could result only from the annulment of the contested report .
In Case 192/88
Mrs M . Turner, represented by G . Vandersanden, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of A . Schmitt, 62 avenue Guillaume,
applicant,
v
Commission of the European Communities, represented by S . Van Raepenbusch, a member of its Legal Department, acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of G . Kremlis, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg,
defendant,
APPLICATION for annulment of the applicant' s staff report for the period 1983-85 and for an order that the Commission carry out its undertaking to amend the report,
THE COURT ( First Chamber )
composed : of R . Joliet, President of Chamber, Sir Gordon Slynn and G . C . Rodríguez Iglesias, Judges,
( the grounds of the judgment are not reproduced )
hereby :
( 1 ) Dismisses the objection of inadmissibility raised against the first head of claim in Case 192/88;
( 2 ) Declares the second head of claim in Case 192/88 to be inadmissible;
( 3 ) Reserves the costs .
