Order — ECLI:EU:F:2008:92
Date: 2008-07-03
Language of the case: French
Court formation: President of the Chamber
Based on: Merger Treaty (1965)
Subject matter: Staff regulations and employment conditions - EC
Concepts: Application for interim measures: suspension of operation of the contested measure and other interim measures
Procedure: Staff cases;Action for damages;Application for interim measures

Summary Officials – Organisation of departments – Assignment of staff – Administration's discretion (Staff Regulations, Arts 7(1), 101a and Annex X) The institutions have a wide discretion to organise their departments to suit the tasks entrusted to them and to assign the staff available to them in the light of such tasks, provided the staff are assigned in the interests of the service and in conformity with the principle that the post to which an official is assigned should correspond to his grade. Reassignment in the interests of the service does not require the official’s consent. Such a requirement would have the effect of imposing an unacceptable restriction on the institutions’ freedom to organise their departments and to adjust that organisation as their needs change. In particular, Article 7(1) of the Staff Regulations concerning the assignment of officials in the interests of the service continues to apply to staff assigned outside the European Union. According to Article 101a of the Staff Regulations, the special and exceptional provisions applicable to officials assigned to a third country contained in Annex X to the Staff Regulations, Articles 2 and 3 of which, concerning the mobility procedure, refer to the detailed implementing rules laid down by the appointing authority, apply without prejudice to the other provisions of the Staff Regulations. (see paras 75-77, 111) See: 161/80 and 162/80 Carbognani and Coda Zabetta v Commission [1981] ECR 543, para. 28; 19/87 Hecq v Commission [1988] ECR 1681, para. 6; C-294/95 P Ojha v Commission [1996] ECR I‑5863, para. 40 T-73/96 Forcat Icardo v Commission [1997] ECR-SC I‑A‑159 and II‑485, para. 26; T-98/96 Costacurta v Commission [1998] ECR-SC I‑A‑21 and II‑49, paras 33, 36 and 40