Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2016:493
Date: 2016-09-15
Language of the case: French
Court formation: Eighth Chamber
Subject matter: Staff regulations and employment conditions - EC
Procedure: Action for annulment - unfounded;Action for annulment - inadmissible
Origin: Belgium

Summary — Judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber), 15 September 2016 1. Actions for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Measures of direct and individual concern to them — Regulation adapting the remunerations and pensions of officials and other servants of the Union — Action by trade unions enjoying procedural rights in the context of the procedure for adopting the regulation — Admissibility (Arts 263, fourth para., TFEU and 336 TFEU; Staff Regulations, Arts 9(3), 10b, 10c, 24b and 55, and Annexes II, Art. 1, and XI, Arts 3 and 10; European Parliament and Council Regulations No 422/2014 and No 423/2014) 2. Actions for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Measures of direct and individual concern to them — Action brought by a trade association set up to protect and represent its members — Admissibility — Conditions (Art. 263, fourth para., TFEU) 3. Acts of the institutions — Directives — Directive 2002/14 establishing a general framework for informing and consulting employees — No direct imposition of obligations on EU institutions in relations with their staff — Invocability — Scope (Art. 288 TFEU; European Parliament and Council Directive 2002/14) 4. Judicial proceedings — Introduction of new pleas during the proceedings — Plea raised for the first time at the reply stage — Inadmissibility (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Arts 44(1)(c), and 48(2)) 5. Judicial proceedings — Application initiating proceedings — Formal requirements — Brief summary of the pleas in law on which the application is based — Abstract statement — Inadmissibility (Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 21, first para., and 53, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 44(1)(c)) 6. Actions for annulment — Grounds — Infringement of essential procedural requirements — To be considered of the Court’s own motion (Art. 263 TFEU) 1. A regulation of the European Parliament and the Council adapting the remunerations and pensions of officials and other servants of the European Union and the weighting coefficients affecting those remunerations and pensions, adopted on the basis of Article 336 TFEU, in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure, falls within the category of measures of general application, in respect of which, under the fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU, the admissibility of actions for annulment brought by natural or legal persons is subject to observance of the conditions of direct and individual concern. In the case of an action brought by trade unions, the possibility that they might have a right to information and consultation in respect of the remuneration and pension adjustment proposal submitted by the Commission to the Parliament and the Council, which led to the adoption of the said regulation, does not establish that they are directly affected by that regulation. The fact that a person intervenes in some way in the process leading to the adoption of an act of the European Union is sufficient to distinguish that person individually as regards the act in question only if the applicable rules of the Union grant him certain procedural guarantees. Unless there is an explicit provision to the contrary, neither the process of drawing up measures of a general nature, nor the measures themselves, require, by virtue of general principles of Union law, such as the right to be heard, the participation of affected persons, their interests being deemed to be represented by the political bodies called upon to adopt those measures. In that regard, Article 10 of Annex XI to the Staff Regulations, which allows derogation, subject to certain conditions, from the regular annual adjustment method for remuneration and pensions provided for in Article 3 of that Annex, does not apply in the procedure that led to the adoption of the regulation in question. Accordingly, the applicants cannot rely on procedural rights purportedly derived from that provision to show that they have locus standi. The same applies to Article 10a of the Staff Regulations, Article 9(3) of the Staff Regulations, Article 1 of Annex II to the Staff Regulations, Article 24b of the Staff Regulations, and Article 55 of the Staff Regulations. However, the fact that trade unions cannot derive procedural rights from those provisions does not preclude them from availing themselves of such rights on the basis of other provisions of EU law, including of the Staff Regulations. Thus, Article 10b and 10c of the Staff Regulations each allows the Commission to consult the representative trade unions on proposals for revision of the Staff Regulations and each institution to conclude, with its representative trade unions, agreements pertaining to its staff. The fact that such agreements may not entail any amendment of the Staff Regulations or any budgetary commitments, or affect the working of the institution concerned, and that the signatory trade unions must operate in each institution subject to the statutory powers of the Staff Committee is not per se an impediment to those agreements’ being intended to confer procedural guarantees on those organisations. (see paras 52-54, 69, 89, 95, 97-99, 101) 2. Actions brought by associations, be they trade unions or groupings of trade unions, have been held to be admissible in three types of situations: (i) where a legal provision expressly confers on professional associations a number of powers of a procedural nature; (ii) where the association represents the interests of its members which themselves have locus standi; and (iii) where the association is differentiated by reason of the impact on its own interests as an association, in particular because its position as a negotiator has been affected by the measure of which the annulment is sought. As for whether such an association’s own interests are affected, an organisation formed for the protection of the collective interests of a category of persons cannot be regarded as being directly and individually concerned by a measure affecting the general interests of that category. In that regard, the mere fact that those organisations took part in the negotiations which preceded the adoption of the contested regulations is not sufficient to change the nature of the right of action which, in the context of Article 263 TFEU, they may possess in relation to those provisions. (see paras 55, 57, 58) 3. As directives are addressed to Member States and not to the institutions of the Union, the provisions of Directive 2002/14 establishing a general framework for informing and consulting employees in the European Community cannot therefore be regarded as imposing as such obligations on the institutions in their relations with their staff. However, the fact that a directive does not per se bind the institutions does not preclude rules or principles laid down in that directive from being relied on as against institutions when they are not themselves set out as the specific expression of fundamental rules of the Treaty and general principles that are directly binding on those institutions. Likewise, a directive may be binding on an institution where the latter, within the scope of its organisational autonomy and within the limits of the Staff Regulations, has sought to carry out a specific obligation laid down by a directive or in the specific instance where an internal measure of general application itself expressly refers to measures laid down by the Union legislature pursuant to the Treaties. Lastly, the institutions must, in their conduct as employer and in accordance with their duty to cooperate in good faith, take account of legislative provisions adopted at EU level. (see paras 72-74) 4. See the text of the decision. (see para. 148) 5. See the text of the decision. (see para. 149) 6. See the text of the decision. (see para. 151)