Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2016:103
Date: 2016-02-26
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;Staff cases;Action for damages

Summary 1. Officials — Staff of the European Investment Bank — Regulatory nature of the employment relationship — Organisation of departments and fixing of staff remuneration — Administration’s discretion (Staff Regulations of the European Investment Bank, Arts 13, 16, 20, first and second paras, and Annexes I and II) 2. Officials — Staff of the European Investment Bank — Remuneration — Reform of the awards scheme — Administration’s discretion — Scope — Obligation to retain the previous, more favourable scheme — None (Staff Regulations of the European Investment Bank, Arts 16 and 20) 3. Officials — Administration’s duty to have regard for the welfare of staff — Scope — Making savings at expense of staff — Lawfulness 1. As regards the nature of the employment relationship, according to Article 13 of the Staff Regulations of the European Investment Bank, relations between the Bank and the members of its staff are, in principle, governed by individual contracts in conjunction with those Staff Regulations. Where contracts are concluded with a European Union body entrusted with public interest responsibilities and authorised, like the European Investment Bank, to lay down, by regulation, provisions applicable to its staff, the consent of the parties to such a contract is necessarily circumscribed by all manner of obligations deriving from those particular responsibilities and incumbent upon both the management bodies of that body and its staff. The European Investment Bank’s relations with its contract staff are, to a large extent, determined by the Staff Regulations, by which staff agree to be bound when they countersign the letter of appointment. More particularly, it is clear from the first and second paragraphs of Article 20 of the Staff Regulations and from Annexes I and II thereto that basic salaries and supplementary allowances are fixed by regulation. Moreover, when it comes to awards, Article 16 of the Staff Regulations confers discretion on the President of the European Investment Bank both as regards the principle of granting those awards and in determining their amount. The European Investment Bank, in order to carry out its public interest responsibilities, therefore has discretion to organise its departments and to fix unilaterally the remuneration of its staff, notwithstanding the legal instruments of a contractual nature on which that employment relationship is based. (see paras 48, 50-52) See: Judgment of 14 October 2004 in Pflugradt v ECB, C‑409/02 P, ECR, EU:C:2004:625, para. 34 2. It is clear from Articles 16 and 20 of the Staff Regulations of the European Investment Bank that the Bank fixes basic salaries and supplementary allowances by regulation, which includes the possibility for the Bank to change remuneration for the future. From that point of view, the fact that a European Union body followed a particular policy for a long period does not create, for the persons concerned, a right to retain the benefits which that policy may have brought them. (see para. 97) See: Judgment of 17 December 1981 in Ludwigshafener Walzmühle Erling and Others v Council and Commission, 197/80 to 200/80, 243/80, 245/80 and 247/80, ECR, EU:C:1981:311, para. 40 3. It follows from the administration’s duty to have regard for the welfare of its staff that when it takes a decision concerning the situation of a staff member, it must take into consideration all the factors which may affect its decision, that is, not only the interests of the service but also, in particular, those of the official concerned. The duty to consider the interests of the staff concerned does not mean, however, that account may not be taken of objectives which are disadvantageous to staff. In the light of the possibility of taking account of budgetary options, the aim of making savings at the expense of staff is therefore not incompatible with the duty to have regard for the welfare of staff. (see paras 133, 134) See: Judgment of 21 May 2014 in Commission v Macchia, T‑368/12 P, ECR-SC, EU:T:2014:266, para. 49