Judgment — ECLI:EU:F:2009:53
Date: 2009-06-04
Language of the case: Dutch
Court formation: Second Chamber
Based on: Merger Treaty (1965)
Subject matter: Staff regulations and employment conditions - EC
Concepts: Interpretation of Community law;Europol
Procedure: Staff cases - successful

Summary 1. Officials – Europol staff – Recruitment – Decision of the Director of Europol concerning the Staff Regulations – Expression ‘any Europol post’ (Staff Regulations applicable to Europol employees, Annex 1) 2. Community law – Interpretation – Methods – Literal and logical interpretation 1. It follows from the textual interpretation of Article 2.4 of the Decision of the Director of Europol of 8 December 2006 on the implementation of Article 6 of the Staff Regulations applicable to Europol employees that the term ‘any Europol post’ which it contains must be interpreted, like the definition given in Article 1.1 of the same decision, as any post covered by the list in Appendix 1 to the Staff Regulations, and that the textual interpretation of the English version of Article 2.4 does not allow a different meaning to be given to the term ‘Europol post’ used in Article 2.4 of the Decision of 8 December 2006 from that of the term ‘Europol post’ defined in Article 1.1 of that decision. Since the post of seconded expert to Europol is not included on the list in Appendix 1 to the Staff Regulations applicable to Europol employees, a person occupying such a post is ‘detached from any Europol post’ within the meaning of Article 2.4 of the abovementioned decision. (see paras 57-59) 2. In the absence of working documents clearly expressing the intention of the draftsmen of a provision, the Tribunal can base itself only on the scope of the wording as it is and give it a meaning based on a literal and logical interpretation. Consequently, the interpretation resulting from the actual wording of a provision cannot be replaced by an interpretation based on factual considerations drawn from a particular case. (see para. 69) See: 15/60 Simon v Court of Justice [1961] ECR 115, 125 F‑10/06 André v Commission [2006] ECR-SC I‑A‑1‑183 and II‑A‑1‑755, para. 44