Order — ECLI:EU:T:2014:955
Date: 2014-11-11
Language of the case: French
Court formation: Eighth Chamber
Subject matter: Staff regulations and employment conditions - EC
Procedure: Action for damages - unfounded;Action for annulment - inadmissible;Application to intervene - decision unnecessary
Origin: Belgium

Summary — Order of the General Court (Eighth Chamber), 11 November 2014 1. Actions for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Measures of direct and individual concern to them — Legislative measure — Regulation amending the Staff Regulations of Officials in the matter of reimbursement of travel expenses and travelling time — Action by an official based on the right to participate in procedures for amendment of the Staff Regulations and the fact that he belongs to a limited circle of officials affected by the measure — Not individually affected — Inadmissibility (Arts 263, fourth para., TFEU and 336 TFEU; Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Arts 27 and 28; Staff Regulations, Art. 10; Annex V, Art. 7; Annex VII, Art. 8; European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1023/2013) 2. Actions for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Measures of direct and individual concern to them — Individually affected — Burden of proof on the applicant (Art. 263, fourth para., TFEU) 3. Actions for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Measures of direct and individual concern to them — Action by an EU official against a regulation amending the Staff Regulations — Conditions for admissibility of a hypothetical action against decisions of the administration implementing the amendments not relevant to examination of the condition that the official be individually affected (Arts 256 TFEU, 263, fourth para., TFEU and 270 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Annex I, Art. 1; Staff Regulations, Arts 90 and 91) 4. Actions for annulment — Natural and legal persons — Measures of direct and individual concern to them — Cumulative conditions — Action inadmissible where one of them absent (Art. 263, fourth para., TFEU) 5. Non-contractual liability — Conditions — Unlawfulness — Damage — Causal link — Cumulative conditions — No obligation on the court to examine in a given order — One of those conditions absent — Claim for compensation dismissed in its entirety (Art. 340, second para., TFEU) 6. Non-contractual liability — Conditions — Causal link — Damage suffered following allegedly unlawful adoption by the Parliament and the Council of a regulation amending the Staff Regulations — No direct causal link between the damage and the contested provisions (Art. 340, second para., TFEU; European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1023/2013) 1. In the case of an action brought by an EU official against Regulation No 1023/2013 amending the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union and the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union, adopted on the basis of Article 336 TFEU in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure, the contested provisions fall within the category of legislative acts 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 compliance with the conditions of direct and individual concern. In that regard, the condition of individual concern cannot be based on Articles 27 and 28 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. 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, it is clear that neither Article 336 TFEU, nor Article 10 of the Staff Regulations, nor even Article 27 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, confer an individual procedural right on members of staff of the institutions of the European Union. Moreover, whilst it is true that a person may be individually concerned by a measure because he is part of a limited class of economic operators when that measure alters rights acquired by him prior to its adoption, even if the applicant does belong to a limited group of officials on whom the contested provisions would have the effect of depriving them of their entitlement to reimbursement of travel expenses and to travelling time, that situation is not the result of a right acquired by those officials only. There was no acquired right in that sense, since, according to Article 7 of Annex V, and Article 8 of Annex VII, to the Staff Regulations applicable until 31 December 2013, entitlement to travel expenses and travelling time, regardless of the expatriation or foreign residence allowance, was, in fact, the right of all EU officials. Even if the consequence of the decision of the Parliament and the Council to link, by means of the contested provisions, entitlement to those rights to eligibility for an expatriation or foreign residence allowance is to deprive the applicant of those rights because of the legal and factual situation in which he, like other officials, now finds himself, it is not inconceivable that other officials will, in the future, find themselves in a situation analogous to his. Moreover, the possibility of determining, at the time of the adoption of a contested measure, more or less precisely the number, or even the identity, of the persons to whom that measure applies by no means implies that it must be regarded as being of individual concern to them, as long as it is established that that application takes effect by virtue of an objective legal or factual situation defined by the measure in question. (see paras 25, 31, 32, 37, 41, 45-48) 2. See the text of the decision. (see paras 43, 44) 3. See the text of the decision. (see paras 52, 53) 4. See the text of the decision. (see para. 55) 5. See the text of the decision. (see paras 60, 61) 6. In the context of the engagement of non-contractual liability of the Union within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 340 TFEU, the condition relating to the existence of a causal link requires a certain and direct link of cause and effect between the fault committed by the institution concerned and the alleged damage, the existence of which the applicant must prove. Moreover, the alleged damage must be a sufficiently direct consequence of the conduct complained of, and that conduct must be the determining cause of the damage. In the case of an action brought by an EU official against Regulation No 1023/2013, in the matter of reimbursement of travel expenses and travelling time, which he claims is unlawful and has caused him damage, it is clear that there is no direct and certain link between the contested provisions and the alleged damage suffered. That damage could only, where appropriate, be the consequence of a decision, in accordance with those provisions, of the institution to which the applicant belongs, granting him a number of leave days for travelling inferior to the number granted to him under the Staff Regulations previously applicable and refusing the reimbursement of his annual travel expenses. (see paras 62-64)