Judgment — ECLI:EU:F:2013:42
Date: 2013-03-21
Language of the case: French
Court formation: Third Chamber
Based on: Merger Treaty (1965)
Subject matter: Staff regulations and employment conditions - EC
Procedure: Staff cases - unfounded;Staff cases - inadmissible

Summary 1. Officials — Remuneration — Correction coefficients — Regulations implementing the Staff Regulations — Statement of reasons — Obligation — Scope (Staff Regulations, Arts 64 and 65; Annex XI; Council Regulation No 1239/2010) 2. Officials — Remuneration — Correction coefficients — Fixing — Judicial review — Limits (Staff Regulations, Arts 64 and 65; Annex XI) 3. Judicial proceedings — Application initiating proceedings — Formal requirements — Brief summary of the pleas in law on which the application is based — Reference to a website — Inadmissibility (Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal, Art. 34(4)) 1. The statement of reasons for a regulation which sets the correction coefficients affecting officials’ remuneration may be confined to indicating the general situation which led to its adoption and the general objectives which it is intended to achieve, and need not refer to the technical aspects of the methods of calculation. In that regard, the statement of reasons for Regulation No 1239/2010 adjusting with effect from 1 July 2010 the remuneration and pensions of officials and other servants of the European Union, which refers to Articles 64 and 65 of the Staff Regulations and Annex XI to the Staff Regulations (provisions which set out the conditions in which the correction coefficients are to be adjusted each year), although succinct, is sufficient in the light of those considerations. (see paras 23-24) See: 7 December 1995, T‑544/93 and T‑566/93 Abello and Others v Commission, para. 89; 8 November 2000, T‑175/97 Bareyt and Others v Commission, para. 75 2. With regard to the establishment or review of correction coefficients, under Annex XI to the Staff Regulations, the Statistical Office of the European Union (Eurostat) is responsible for calculating the economic parities, in agreement with the statistical services of the Member States, and for ascertaining whether the ratios between the correction coefficients accurately reflect purchasing power equivalences. In that regard, the wording of Articles 64 and 65 of the Staff Regulations and of Annex XI to the Staff Regulations and the degree of complexity of the subject imply a wide discretion as regards the factors and elements to be taken into consideration when establishing or adjusting the correction coefficients. Accordingly, the assessment of the European Union Courts, as regards the definition and choice of the basic data and statistical methods used by Eurostat to draw up proposals for the correction coefficients, must be confined to verifying that the principles laid down by the Staff Regulations have been complied with and that there has been no manifest error of assessment of the facts on which the correction coefficients are based and that there has been no misuse of powers. In addition, it is for a person who wishes to challenge the factors and the method used to establish the correction coefficients to provide the information that could demonstrate that a manifest error has been committed. Thus, in an area where only an approximation is possible, the finding of a mere disparity between the price trend differential between Brussels and another place of employment and the trend in the correction coefficient applied to that place of employment cannot be sufficient to lead to the conclusion that there has been a manifest error of assessment. In order for that to be the case, the disparity in question must be particularly significant. In any event, even if the existence of errors were established vitiating the ratio, given in a Eurostat report, between the prices for the provision of a service in Brussels and those applied in another place of employment, it would still need to be established in addition that, having regard to the extent of the cumulative effects of those errors, the correction coefficient for the latter place of employment, as a whole, is manifestly incorrect. (see paras 43-46, 54, 77) See: Abello and Others v Commission, paras 53, 55, 56 and 79; 25 September 2002, T‑201/00 and T‑384/00 Ajour and Others v Commission, paras 46 to 49 3. Under Article 34(4) of the Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal, it is not for the Tribunal to search the internet for documents not annexed to the pleadings. (see para. 73)