JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Second Chamber)

22 December 2008

Case C-443/07 P

**Isabel Clara Centeno Mediavilla and Others**

**v**

**Commission of the European Communities**

(Appeal – Staff Regulations of officials – Plea of illegality of Article 12(3) of Annex XIII on the classification of officials recruited after 1 May 2004 – Consulting of the Staff Regulations Committee – No infringement of acquired rights or of the principle of equal treatment)

**Appeal:**brought against the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T‐58/05 *Centeno Mediavilla and Others* v *Commission* [2007] ECR II-2523, seeking to have that judgment set aside

**Held:**The appeal is dismissed.

**Summary**

1.        *Officials – Staff Regulations – Regulation amending the Staff Regulations – Procedure for adoption – Consultation of the Staff
Regulations Committee*

*(Art. 283 EC; Staff Regulations of Officials, Art. 10, second para; Annex XIII, Art. 12(3))*

2.        *Officials – Recruitment – Appointment in grade – Introduction of a new career structure by Regulation No 723/2004 – Transitional
provisions for classification in grade*

*(Staff Regulations of Officials, Arts 3 and 31; Annex XIII, Art. 12(3); Council Regulation No 723/2004)*

3.        *Officials – Recruitment – Appointment in grade – Introduction of a new career structure by Regulation No 723/2004 – Transitional
provisions for classification in grade*

*(Staff Regulations of Officials, Annex XIII, Art. 12(3); Council Regulation No 723/2004)*

4.        *Officials – Recruitment – Appointment in grade – Introduction of a new career structure by Regulation No 723/2004 – Transitional
provisions for classification in grade*

*(Staff Regulations of Officials, Annex XIII, Art. 12(3); Council Regulation No 723/2004)*

1.        The terms of Article 10 of the Staff Regulations, which provides for the setting up of a Staff Committee which must be consulted
on all proposals to revise the Staff Regulations and may put forward suggestions in connection with such revision, are manifestly
irreconcilable with a restrictive interpretation. The Commission is obliged to consult that Committee afresh before the legislative
provisions in question are adopted by the Council, when amendments to a proposal concerning the Staff Regulations substantially
affect the general tenor of the proposal, such obligation being excluded in the case of specific amendments of limited effect.
Whether or not an amendment is substantial must be determined from the point of view of its subject-matter and the place occupied
by the amended provisions in the enacting terms overall, and not from the point of view of the individual consequences that
it might have for the officials concerned.

In this regard, substitution of the grade A*6 for the grade A*7, arising from the reform of career brackets introduced by
the Community legislature on 1 May 2004, initially envisaged in Article 12(3) of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations, is not
substantial, for it constitutes an additional element of the reform, which fits into the broad logic and overall perspective
of a progressive restructuring of careers. That amendment not departing substantially from the text put before that committee,
which was therefore able to express an opinion as to whether it might be possible to envisage a difference in recruitment
grades between officials, successful in competitions held before the reform entered into force, who were recruited before
that date, and those recruited after that date, it did not call for fresh consultation of the committee.

2.        Candidates successful in competitions and included in lists of suitable candidates have, as such, no acquired right to be
appointed, but are merely eligible to be so, and their classification in grade is dependent on their appointment, which is
a matter falling within the power of the appointing authority. It follows that candidates successful in competitions and included
in lists of suitable candidates before 1 May 2004, the date of entry into force of Regulation No 723/2004 amending the Staff
Regulations and the Conditions of employment of other servants, but appointed as probationary officials after that date, cannot
assert any acquired right to claim, instead of the application of the new classification criteria laid down by the regulation,
observance of the classification in grade stated in the notices of competition, in so far as the situation creating their
right to observance of certain recruitment conditions had not come to an end before that regulation entered into force. Those
considerations hold good also for those recruited as probationary officials before 1 May 2004 and appointed as officials after
that date.

Although candidates successful in a competition derive, in principle, the right from Article 31(1) of the Staff Regulations
to be given the grade of the function group stated in the notice of competition if they are appointed, that provision can
apply only where the law is unchanging, because it cannot compel the appointing authority to take a decision incompatible
with the Staff Regulations as amended by the Community legislature and therefore unlawful. Article 12(3) of Annex XIII to
the Staff Regulations, as a transitional provision of a special kind, may introduce a derogation from the general rule provided
for by Article 31 of the Staff Regulations applicable to a given category of officials.

3.        The legislature, in adopting Article 12(3) of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations, which gives rise to a difference in the
treatment of officials successful in the same competition, recruited respectively before and after 1 May 2004, the date of
entry into force of the reform introduced by Regulation No 723/2004 amending the Staff Regulations and the Conditions of employment
of other servants, has not infringed that principle, for the differentiated treatment affects officials who do not form part
of a single category. In fact, officials recruited after 1 May 2004 are not in the same legal situation as officials recruited
before that date for, at the moment when the reform entered into force, they, unlike officials already recruited, were merely
eligible to be appointed. Such a difference in treatment is, moreover, based on an objective factor independent of the will
of the Community legislature, namely, the date of recruitment decided by the appointing authority. Furthermore, in balancing
the interests of the different categories of officials in the gradual introduction of the new rules of the Staff Regulations,
the Community legislature was able legitimately to decide that recruitment of officials successful in competitions that took
place before 1 May 2004 but who were recruited after that date would take place according to the terms of the new rules, affording
them more advantageous treatment than that applied to officials successful in competitions held after 1 May 2004 and recruited
later.

The classification criteria set out in Article 12(3) of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations do not entail any discrimination
on grounds of age either, for they are manifestly unconnected to any taking into account of the age of the successful candidates
in the competitions concerned and, furthermore, having regard to Category A, they distinguish the basic Grade A*5 (formerly
Grade A8) from the higher Grade A*6 (formerly Grade A7/A6).

4.        Candidates successful in competitions and included in lists of suitable candidates before 1 May 2004, the date of entry into
force of Regulation No 723/2004 amending the Staff Regulations and the Conditions of employment of other servants, but appointed
as probationary officials after that date, may not rely on indications given by the administration before their appointment
concerning their classification in accordance with the criteria set out in the notices of competition, accompanied by warnings
that recruitment might be proposed on the basis of the new provisions of the Staff Regulations, in order to challenge the
lawfulness of those provisions, on which the appointment decisions were ultimately based. Even if it should be considered
that those statements made by the administration amounted to specific assurances such as to engender legitimate expectations
in the addressees, the individuals concerned cannot rely on the principle of protection of legitimate expectations in order
to oppose the application of a new legislative provision, especially in a sphere in which the legislature enjoys a considerable
degree of latitude. Acts of the administration cannot restrict the legislature’s freedom of action, or yet constitute a criterion
of lawfulness which the legislature must satisfy.