Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2011:338
Date: 2011-07-07
Language of the case: Greek
Court formation: Appeals Chamber
Based on: Merger Treaty (1965)
Subject matter: Staff regulations and employment conditions - EC
Procedure: Appeal - unfounded;Appeal - inadmissible;Staff cases;Action for damages

Summary 1. Officials — Members of the temporary staff — Termination of a contract concluded for an indefinite period — Obligation to state reasons — Burden of proof that that obligation has been satisfied (Conditions of Employment of Other Servants, Art. 47(c)) 2. Appeals — Pleas in law — Incorrect assessment of the facts and evidence — Inadmissibility — Review by the General Court of the assessment of the facts and evidence — Possible only where the clear sense of the evidence has been distorted — Obligation of the Civil Service Tribunal to state the reasons for its assessment of the evidence — Scope (Art. 225A EC; Statute of the Court of Justice, Annex I, Art. 11(1)) 3. Officials — Members of the temporary staff — Termination of a contract concluded for an indefinite period — Obligation to state reasons — Scope (Staff Regulations, Arts 25, second sentence, and 90(2); Conditions of Employment of Other Servants, Art. 11(1)) 4. Officials — Members of the temporary staff — Termination of a contract concluded for an indefinite period — Administration’s discretion — Judicial review — Limits (Conditions of Employment of Other Servants, Art. 47(c)) 5. Officials — Members of the temporary staff — Termination of a contract concluded for an indefinite period — Administration’s discretion — Obligation to initiate disciplinary proceedings — None (Staff Regulations, Annex IX; Conditions of Employment of Other Servants, Arts 47(c), 49(1) and 50a) 6. Appeals — Pleas in law — Error of law relied on not identified — Inadmissibility (Statute of the Court of Justice, Annex I, Art. 11; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 138(1)(c)) 7. Officials — Actions — Prior administrative complaint — Assessment of the impartiality and objectivity of the competent body — Assessment of actual situation (Staff Regulations, Art. 90(2)) 1. The competent authority is under an obligation to state the reasons for its decision when dismissing a member of the temporary staff who is under a contract for an indefinite period. The burden of proof that that obligation has been satisfied lies with the competent authority. The principle of the presumption of legality attaching to European Union measures in no way exempts the Union institution or body concerned from the obligation to provide the proof of which it bears the burden, in accordance with the general principles of law and the rules of procedure in relation to the burden of proof and the taking of evidence, where the lawfulness of one of its measures is challenged in an action for annulment. (see paras 38, 39) See: T‑404/06 P ETF v Landgren [2009] ECR II‑2841, paras 143 to 171; F‑1/05 Landgren v ETF [2006] ECR‑SC I‑A‑1‑123 and II‑A‑1‑459, paras 73 and 74 2. Under Article 225a EC and Article 11(1) of Annex I to the Statute of the Court of Justice, an appeal to the General Court must be limited to points of law and may lie on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction of the Civil Service Tribunal, a breach of procedure before it which adversely affects the interests of the appellant, as well as the infringement of Union law by the Tribunal. The court of first instance has exclusive jurisdiction, first, to establish the facts except where the substantive inaccuracy of its findings is apparent from the documents submitted to it and, second, to assess those facts. When the court of first instance has found or assessed the facts, the appeal court has jurisdiction to review the legal characterisation of those facts by the court of first instance and the legal conclusions it has drawn from them. The appeal court thus has no jurisdiction to establish the facts or, in principle, to examine the evidence which the court of first instance accepted in support of those facts. Provided that the evidence has been properly obtained and the general principles of law and the rules of procedure in relation to the burden of proof and the taking of evidence have been observed, it is for the court of first instance alone to assess the value which should be attached to the evidence produced to it. Save where the clear sense of the evidence has been distorted, that appraisal does not therefore constitute a point of law which is subject as such to review by the appeal court. It is for the Civil Service Tribunal alone to assess the value which should be attached to the evidence produced to it, and it cannot be required to give express reasons for its assessment of the value of each piece of evidence presented to it. The Civil Service Tribunal is obliged to provide reasons which will allow the General Court to exercise its judicial review, in particular as to whether there has been any distortion of the evidence submitted to the General Court. (see paras 42-44, 59) See: C‑551/03 P General Motors v Commission [2006] ECR I‑3173, para. 51; C‑167/04 P JCB Service v Commission [2006] ECR I‑8935, para. 106; C‑440/07 P Commission v Schneider Electric [2009] ECR I‑6413, para. 103; T‑114/08 P Marcuccio v Commission [2009] ECR‑SC I‑B‑1‑53 and II‑B‑1‑313, para. 12 and the case-law cited therein 3. A decision to dismiss a member of the temporary staff employed under a contract of indefinite duration may be regarded as having an adequate statement of reasons even if the grounds are not set out in writing, but communicated to the staff member concerned during an interview with his superiors. Those conditions do not infringe Article 11(1) of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants or the second sentence of Article 25 of the Staff Regulations since, although those provisions imply, in principle, that an individual decision adversely affecting a staff member must set out all the reasons for which it was adopted, in order to allow the person concerned to ascertain whether it is well founded and to make it possible for the Union judicature to review its lawfulness, where appropriate, the fact remains that awareness, by the staff member concerned, of the context in which a decision was adopted may constitute a statement of reasons for that decision. (see paras 67, 68) See: ETF v Landgren, para. 179 and the case-law cited therein; Landgren v ETF, para. 79 4. Subject to its obligation to state the reasons for its decisions, the authority authorised to conclude contracts of engagement enjoys a wide discretion regarding the termination of temporary staff contracts of indefinite duration. Consequently, review by the European Union judicature must be limited to ascertaining that there has been no manifest error or misuse of powers. (see para. 84) See: ETF v Landgren, para. 162 and the case-law cited therein 5. In the light of the broad discretion enjoyed by the authority authorised to conclude contracts of engagement, where there is wrongful conduct capable of justifying the dismissal of a member of the temporary staff, there is no obligation on that authority to initiate disciplinary proceedings against him rather than using the option of unilaterally terminating the contract provided for in Article 47(c) of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants. It is only if the authority intends to dismiss a member of the temporary staff without notice, in a serious case of failure to comply with his obligations, that the disciplinary procedure provided for in Annex IX to the Staff Regulations of Officials, which applies by analogy to members of the temporary staff, should be initiated, as provided for in Article 49(1) of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants. Article 50a of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants does not impose an obligation, but merely gives the authority authorised to conclude contracts of engagement the option of initiating disciplinary proceedings if a member of the temporary staff fails in any way to comply with his obligations. (see paras 100, 102) 6. It follows from Article 11 of Annex I to the Statute of the Court of Justice and Article 138(1)(c) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court that an appeal must indicate precisely the contested elements of the judgment which the appellant seeks to have set aside, and also the legal arguments specifically advanced in support of the appeal. That requirement is not satisfied by an appeal which does not include any argument specifically identifying the error of law allegedly vitiating the judgment or order in question. (see para. 112) See: 9 September 2010, T‑17/08 P Andreasen v Commission, para. 127 and the case-law cited therein; 16 September 2010, T‑52/10 P Lebedef v Commission, para. 35 and the case‑law cited therein 7. In the context of the rules applicable to staff of the European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training, the appeals committee is the administrative body responsible for dealing with all complaints lodged by the staff concerned under Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations. The impartiality and objectivity of this joint body, which includes members of staff, cannot be seen in the abstract. They may be challenged, in the particular context of a given complaints procedure, only by having regard to all the circumstances of the individual case, in particular those relating to the complainant himself, the purpose of his complaint and any relationship which he and, where appropriate, the person(s) implicated in the complaint have with the members of the appeals committee. (see paras 114, 115)