Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2010:454
Date: 2010-10-27
Language of the case: English
Court formation: Appeals Chamber
Based on: Merger Treaty (1965)
Subject matter: Staff regulations and employment conditions - EC
Procedure: Appeal - unfounded;Staff cases

Summary 1. Actions for annulment — Pleas in law — Lack of competence of the institution which adopted the contested measure — To be considered of the Court’s own motion (Art. 263 TFEU) 2. Officials — Members of the contract staff — Classification 1. Pleas contesting the formal legality of an act or pleas of inadmissibility may be raised by the Court of its own motion, so that a finding which touches on the competence of the institution which adopted the act must be raised by the Court of its own motion even though none of the parties has asked it to do so. (see para. 43) See: 19/58 Germany v High Authority [1960] ECR 225, 233; C-210/98 P Salzgitter v Commission [2000] ECR I-5843, paragraph 56 2. The principle of non-discrimination means that comparable situations should not be treated differently and that different situations should not be treated in the same way, unless there are objective grounds for doing so. In that regard, the situation of an applicant who has obtained a ‘Laurea’ diploma after four years of study, before the introduction of a new system of diplomas following the Bologna Declaration, notwithstanding the grant of the title of ‘Dottore Magistrale’ to holders of a ‘Laurea’, in the same manner as to holders of a ‘Master’s’ degree obtained after the introduction of that system, and the situation of a person who has obtained such a ‘Master’s’ degree cannot be considered to be the same. It cannot therefore be legitimately held that, for the purposes of his classification as a member of the contract staff, that applicant had obtained two diplomas, a ‘Bachelor’s’ degree and a ‘Master’s’ degree, since the ‘Master’s’ degree is to be regarded as one year of professional experience. (see paras 62, 64) See: T‑373/94 Werners v Council and Commission [2006] ECR II‑4631, para. 98 and the case-law cited therein