79In the present case, the contested decision does not expressly state the AECCE’s reasons for deciding not to renew the applicant’s contract. That being so, it should be noted that, since it is in the nature of the pre-litigation procedure for matters to evolve, it is the reasons given in the decision rejecting the complaint which are to be taken into consideration in examining the legality of the original act with adverse effect, those reasons being deemed to also cover that act (see Mocová v Commission, F‑41/11, EU:F:2012:82, paragraph 21). Furthermore, in relation to a decision not to renew the contract of a member of the temporary staff, the AECCE may change or substitute the reasons for the decision at the complaint stage, as it did in the present case (see Mocová v Commission, T‑347/12 P, EU:T:2014:268, paragraphs 33 to 46).
Source: EUR-Lex, © European Union, 1998-2026. Reuse authorised under Decision 2011/833/EU.