Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2015:393
Date: 2015-06-19
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;Action for damages;Appeal - successful
Origin: Luxembourg

Summary — Judgment of the General Court (Appeal Chamber), 19 June 2015 1. Actions brought by officials — Acts adversely affecting an official — Decision rejecting a complaint — Rejection pure and simple — Confirmatory measure — Inadmissibility (Staff Regulations, Art. 91(1)) 2. Actions brought by officials — Prior administrative complaint — Complaint against an act forming the subject-matter of an action — Irrelevant to the administration’s obligation to examine (Staff Regulations, Arts 90 and 91) 3. Court of Justice of the European Union — Requirement that EU judges be independent — Scope — Exercise of functions relating to the internal administration of the institution — Lawfulness (Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 4) 1. See the text of the decision. (see para. 141) 2. Under the complaint procedure established by Article 90 of the Staff Regulations, the claimant must be able to obtain review by the EU judicature of the legality of the decision rejecting the complaint and not just the legality of the initial act forming the subject-matter of the complaint. The claimant’s interest in the proper conduct of the complaint procedure and, therefore, in the annulment of the decision relating to the rejection of his complaint in the event of irregularity, must be assessed independently and not in relation to any action brought against the initial act, which is the subject of the complaint. Otherwise, an interested party could never rely on irregularities in the complaint procedure, even though they deprived him of the benefit of a proper pre-litigation review of the administrative authorities’ decision, whenever an appeal is brought against the initial act against which the complaint is made. He would thereby lose the benefit of a procedure which seeks to permit and encourage an amicable settlement to the dispute which has arisen between the official and the administration and to require the authority to which the official reports to reconsider its decision, in compliance with the rules, in the light of any objections which that official may make. (see paras 144-146) 3. The first paragraph of Article 4 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, according to which the Judges may not hold any political or administrative office, seeks to ensure the independence of the judges, both during and after the exercise of their functions, with regard, in particular, to Member States or other EU institutions. The other paragraphs of Article 4 of the Statute of the Court of Justice also reflect that aim of preserving the judges’ independence. It cannot, however, be inferred from the first paragraph of Article 4 of the Statute of the Court of Justice that it is impossible to exercise functions relating to the internal administration of the institution. The exercise by the judges of internal administrative functions within the institution does not undermine their independence and makes it possible to ensure the administrative autonomy of the institution. (see para. 167)