Order — ECLI:EU:T:2015:845
Date: 2015-10-22
Language of the case: French
Court formation: Appeals Chamber
Based on: Merger Treaty (1965)
Subject matter: Staff regulations and employment conditions - EC
Procedure: Appeal - unfounded;Appeal - inadmissible;Staff cases;Judgment delivered after back reference;Action for damages

Summary 1. Officials — Members of the temporary staff — Recruitment — Renewal of a fixed-term contract — Administration’s discretion — Limits — Duty to have regard for the welfare of staff — Scope — Balancing the interests of the service and the interests of the staff member — Obligation to state reasons (Conditions of Employment, Art. 8) 2. Officials — Members of the temporary staff — Recruitment — Renewal of a fixed-term contract — Administration’s discretion — Judicial review — Scope (Conditions of Employment, Art. 8) 3. Officials — Members of the temporary staff — Recruitment — Renewal of a fixed-term contract — Administration’s discretion — Limits — Duty to have regard for the welfare of staff — Scope — Obligation to consider the possibility of reassigning the staff member concerned — None (Conditions of Employment, Art. 8) 1. Although Article 8 of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants makes it possible to renew a temporary staff contract, it is not an entitlement, but merely a possibility left to the discretion of the competent authority. That discretion must, however, be exercised in compliance with the duty to have regard for the welfare of staff. Applied to a decision on the possible renewal of a temporary staff contract, the duty to have regard for the welfare of staff thus requires the competent authority, when it takes its decision, to balance the interests of the service and the interests of the staff member. The duty to have regard for the welfare of staff also involves the obligation for the competent authority to explain, as part of the statement of grounds for the decision not to renew the contract, the reasons why it had allowed the interests of the service to prevail. (see paras 27-29, 31) See: Judgments of 28 May 1980 in Kuhner v Commission, 33/79 and 75/79, ECR, EU:C:1980:139, para. 22, and of 29 June 1994 in Klinke v Court of Justice, C‑298/93 P, ECR, EU:C:1994:273, para. 38 Judgments of 12 December 2000 in Dejaiffe v OHIM, T‑223/99, ECR-SC, EU:T:2000:292, para. 53, and of 15 October 2008 in Potamianos v Commission, T‑160/04, ECR-SC, EU:T:2008:438, para. 30 and the case law cited therein Judgment of 10 October 2014 in EMA v BU, T‑444/13 P, ECR-SC, EU:T:2014:865, paras 30, 36 and 37 2. Having regard to the broad discretion conferred on the competent authority when it takes a decision on the possible renewal of a temporary staff contract, judicial review is limited to ascertaining that there has been no manifest error or misuse of powers. (see para. 32) See: Judgment of 21 May 2014 in Commission v Macchia, T‑368/12 P, ECR-SC, EU:T:2014:266, para. 49 3. The duty to have regard for the welfare of staff cannot go so far as to entail for the competent authority an obligation to examine, prior to taking its decision on the possible renewal of a temporary staff contract, the possibility of reassigning the staff member to new tasks and functions before deciding not to renew his contract. Consequently, the mere existence of vacant posts within the body in question, even in a significant number, is not such as to prevent the authority empowered to conclude contracts of employment to rely on budget considerations to justify non-renewal of the temporary staff member’s contract. Similarly, the authority empowered to conclude contracts of employment is not under an obligation to give priority to a staff member whose contract it has decided not to renew in respect of vacant posts, whatever the procedure followed for filling the post. (see paras 30, 41, 55) See: Judgments of 21 May 2014 in Commission v Macchia, EU:T:2014:266, paras 56 and 57, and of 10 October 2014 in EMA v BU, EU:T:2014:865, para. 30