Information;Order — ECLI:EU:C:2020:39
Date: 2020-01-21
Language of the case: English
Court formation: Eighth Chamber
Based on: Merger Treaty (1965)
Subject matter: Staff regulations and employment conditions - EC
Procedure: Staff cases;Action for damages;Appeal - decision unnecessary

ORDER OF THE COURT (Eighth Chamber) 21 January 2020 (*) (Appeal — Civil service — Temporary staff — European Parliament — Termination of the contract — Agreement intended to resolve the dispute between the parties — Appeal which has become devoid of purpose — No need to adjudicate) In Case C‑506/18 P, APPEAL under Article 56 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, brought on 1 August 2018, European Parliament, represented by I. Ní Riagáin Düro and V. Montebello-Demogeot and by J. Steele, acting as Agents, appellant, the other party to the proceedings being: Erik Josefsson, residing in Malmö (Sweden), represented by T. Bontinck, A. Guillerme and M. Forgeois, avocats, applicant at first instance, THE COURT (Eighth Chamber), composed of L.S. Rossi, President of the Chamber, J. Malenovský (Rapporteur) and F. Biltgen, Judges, Advocate General: J. Kokott, Registrar: A. Calot Escobar, having decided, after hearing the Advocate General, to give a decision by reasoned order, in accordance with Article 149 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, makes the following Order 1 By its appeal, the European Parliament seeks to have set aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 17 May 2018, Josefsson v Parliament (T‑566/16, ‘the judgment under appeal’, not published, EU:T:2018:278), by which the General Court annulled the decision of the Authority Empowered to Conclude Contracts of Employment of the European Parliament of 19 December 2014 concerning the termination of Mr Erik Josefsson’s contract as a member of the temporary staff (‘the contested decision’). Background to the dispute, the procedure before the General Court and the judgment under appeal 2 Mr Josefsson was initially engaged by the ‘Greens/European Free Alliance’ political group of the European Parliament (‘the Political Group’) as a member of the auxiliary staff for a fixed period. Subsequently, he was engaged, pursuant to the third paragraph of Article 8 of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union, as a member of the temporary staff at grade AST 3 for an indefinite period to carry out tasks in that Political Group. More specifically, Mr Josefsson worked as policy advisor on internet policies and intellectual property rights for the Parliament’s Legal Affairs Committee. The description of his post was subsequently changed to that of ‘political expert’. 3 Following the elections held in Parliament in May 2014, the Secretariat of the Political Group was reorganised. The modification of that secretariat’s organigram was the subject of several meetings of the Political Group’s Bureau. On 11 December 2014, a proposal for a new organigram was submitted to the MEPs and staff of the Political Group before that proposal was adopted on 17 December 2014. 4 On 16 December 2014, Mr Josefsson was invited to a meeting on 18 December 2014 with the Authority Empowered to Conclude Contracts of Employment of the European Parliament, namely the Co-President of the Political Group, in the presence of the Deputy Secretary General and the Secretary General of the Political Group. 5 By the contested decision, that authority terminated Mr Josefsson’s contract as a member of the temporary staff with four months’ notice, in accordance with Article 47(c)(i) of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union, on account of the reorganisation of the Political Group’s Secretariat. 6 On 3 March 2015, Mr Josefsson lodged a complaint against the contested decision, which was rejected by the Political Group’s Bureau by letter of 22 July 2015, on the ground that the reorganisation of the structure of the department of the Political Group for the Parliament’s Legal Affairs Committee and that of the division of tasks and competences of the available staff was necessary. In addition, it was stated that that department henceforth required a person with a qualification in law and experience in the fields of copyright, international trade and patents related to medicinal products. It was considered that Mr Josefsson’s career profile did not correspond to the current needs of the service or to other available posts. 7 By application lodged at the Registry of the Civil Service Tribunal on 2 November 2015, Mr Josefsson brought an action seeking, first, annulment of the contested decision and, second, compensation in respect of the non-material damage allegedly suffered by him because of that decision. 8 Pursuant to Article 3 of Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2016/1192 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 July 2016 on the transfer to the General Court of jurisdiction at first instance in disputes between the European Union and its servants (OJ 2016 L 200, p. 137), the case was transferred to the General Court as it stood on 31 August 2016. 9 In support of his application for annulment of the contested decision, Mr Josefsson raised three pleas in law, the first alleging manifest errors of assessment, the second alleging infringement of the right to be heard and of Article 19 of the General implementing provisions governing competitions and selection procedures, recruitment and the grading of officials and other servants of the European Parliament, adopted by the Secretary-General of the Parliament on 17 October 2014, and the third alleging infringement of the principle of sound administration and the duty to have regard for the welfare of staff. 10 By the judgment under appeal, the General Court annulled the contested decision after taking the view that the second plea raised by Mr Josefsson was well founded, in so far as it referred to his right to be heard. The General Court also ordered the Parliament to pay the costs. Forms of order sought and procedure before the Court of Justice 11 By its appeal, the Parliament claims that the Court should: – set aside the judgment under appeal; – dismiss the application brought at first instance; – order each party to bear its own costs, and – order Mr Josefsson to pay the costs at first instance. 12 In his response, Mr Josefsson contends that the Court should: – dismiss the appeal in its entirety as unfounded, and – order the Parliament to pay the costs. 13 By letter of 1 October 2019, the Parliament informed the Court, inter alia, that it had reached an agreement with Mr Josefsson, which concerns the implementation of the judgment under appeal. 14 By letters of the Court Registry of 9 October 2019, the Parliament and Mr Josefsson were requested to state, pursuant to Article 149 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, applicable to appeal proceedings by virtue of Article 190(1) of those rules, whether they maintained that there was still a need to adjudicate on the present appeal. In addition, Mr Josefsson was requested to take a view on the content of the Parliament’s letter of 1 October 2019. 15 By letter of 14 October 2019, first, Mr Josefsson confirmed having reached an agreement with the Parliament intended to resolve the dispute between them, the content of which is confidential. Second, Mr Josefsson replied that, since he was not the appellant in the present case, he left it to the discretion of the Court as regards the decision concerning whether there is any need to adjudicate. 16 The Parliament replied by letter of 16 October 2019, in essence, that, notwithstanding the agreement reached with Mr Josefsson, the appeal had not become devoid of purpose, as the annulment of the dismissal which resulted from the judgment under appeal produced effects which went beyond the scope of that agreement and could affect both parties. 17 First, it is essential for the sound administration of Parliament’s services that the Court clarifies the scope of the right to be heard, particularly in the context of the reorganisation of political groups as a result of Parliamentary elections. Second, the extinction of certain obligations which are the responsibility of European Parliament staff members and extend beyond the end of their period of employment, such as those relating to the management of possible conflicts of interests, depend on the validity of the dismissal. Third, the annulment of the dismissal prevents the Parliament from reallocating budget resources from the post previously occupied by Mr Josefsson to a different post and, accordingly, if the dismissal were declared lawful, the administration would be able to complete the restructuring of the Political Group. Fourth, the parties have not agreed on the costs incurred at first instance. The appeal 18 In accordance with Article 149 of the Rules of Procedure, applicable to appeal proceedings pursuant to Article 190(1) of those rules, if the Court declares that the action has become devoid of purpose and that there is no longer any need to adjudicate on it, it may at any time of its own motion, on a proposal from the Judge-Rapporteur and after hearing the parties and the Advocate General, decide to rule by reasoned order. 19 It is appropriate to apply that provision in the present appeal. 20 It should be noted that, although the Parliament requested in its appeal a review of the legality of the judgment under appeal, it subsequently informed the Court, as pointed out in paragraph 13 above, that it has reached an agreement with Mr Josefsson, the purpose of which is precisely to implement that judgment. Additionally, as observed in paragraph 15 above, Mr Josefsson has confirmed that that agreement was intended to resolve the dispute. 21 In those circumstances, it must be held that the appeal has become devoid of purpose. 22 The arguments of the Parliament, referred to in paragraph 17 above, cannot call into question that finding. 23 Those arguments do not relate to the purpose of its appeal, which seeks review of the legality of the judgment under appeal, but are in fact intended to set out various consequences which result from the agreement concerning the implementation of that judgment, which the Parliament has reached with Mr Josefsson. 24 Admittedly, as stated in paragraph 17 above, the Parliament also contends that it is necessary to clarify, for the sound administration of its services, the scope of the right to be heard in the context of the reorganisation of political groups 25 However, in that regard, the Court has ruled that an interest in the resolution of a legal question which may arise in the future is not sufficient to warrant a decision on an appeal (see, by analogy, order of the Vice-President of the Court of 19 September 2018, C‑229/18 P (R), Parliament v Strabag Belgium, EU:C:2018:740, paragraph 23 and the case-law cited). 26 It follows from all the foregoing that there is no need to adjudicate on the appeal. Costs 27 Under Article 149 of the Rules of Procedure, applicable to appeal proceedings pursuant to Article 190 of those rules, where a case does not proceed to judgment, the Court is to give a decision as to costs. 28 In accordance with Article 142 of the Rules of Procedure, applicable to appeal proceedings pursuant to Article 184 of those rules, the costs are, in this case, to be in the discretion of the Court. 29 Since the fact that there is no need to adjudicate in the present case is attributable to both the Parliament and Mr Josefsson, who have reached an agreement intended to resolve the dispute between them, it is appropriate to order each party to bear its own costs. On those grounds, the Court (Eighth Chamber) hereby orders: 1. There is no need to adjudicate on the appeal. 2. The European Parliament and Mr Erik Josefsson shall bear their own costs. Luxembourg, 21 January 2020. A. Calot Escobar L.S. Rossi Registrar President of the Eighth Chamber * Language of the case: English.