Judgment — ECLI:EU:F:2014:224
Date: 2014-09-25
Language of the case: English
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. Actions brought by officials — Act adversely affecting an official — Definition — Action directed against a decision of the appointing authority abolishing the allowance for living conditions granted to officials serving in certain third countries — Included (Staff Regulations, Arts 90 and 91, and Annex X, Art. 10, as amended by Regulation No 1023/2013) 2. Officials — Remuneration — Emoluments applicable to officials serving in a third country — Allowance for living conditions — Conditions for granting — Obligation for the institutions to adopt general implementing provisions — Infringement — Reliance on infringement by an official challenging the legality of a decision concerning the grant of the allowance — Conditions (Staff Regulations, Art. 110 and Annex X, Art. 1, third para., as amended by Regulation No 1023/2013) 3. Officials — Remuneration — Emoluments applicable to officials serving in a third country — Allowance for living conditions — Conditions for granting — Determination without adopting general implementing provisions by a Union body undergoing a period of adjustment — Lawfulness (Staff Regulations, Annex X, Art. 10(1), as amended by Regulation No 1023/2013) 4. Officials — Principles — Protection of legitimate expectations — Conditions — Precise assurances given by the authorities (Staff Regulations, Annex X, Art. 10, as amended by Regulation No 1023/2013) 1. Officials and other members of staff are entitled to bring an action against a measure of a general nature adopted by the appointing authority which adversely affects them in so far as, first, that measure does not, in order to produce legal effects, require any implementing measure or leave any discretion, as regards its application, to the authorities responsible for implementing it and, secondly, it affects officials’ interests directly by bringing about a distinct change in their legal position. That is true of a decision taken by the appointing authority pursuant to Article 10 of Annex X to the Staff Regulations, resulting in the abolition of the allowance for living conditions for officials assigned to certain delegations and offices of the European Union in third countries. Such a decision seems to be sufficiently precise and unconditional not to require any special implementing measure in order to produce legal effects for officials posted in the third countries concerned. In that regard, although the implementation of the decision requires the adoption of administrative measures, of individual application, to end the grant of the allowance, the adoption of such measures, which does not leave the managing authorities any discretion, is not such as to prevent the legal position of the officials concerned from being directly affected, and they must necessarily expect to lose entitlement to the allowance for living conditions from the actual date of the decision. (see paras 14-16) See: 29 September 1976, 54/75 de Dapper and Others v Parliament; 27 October 1987, 146/85 and 431/85 Diezler and Others v ESC, paras 6 and 7; 8 March 1988, 125/87 Brown v Court of Justice, para. 16 2. General implementing provisions for the purpose of Article 110 of the Staff Regulations are, primarily, the implementing measures expressly provided for by certain special provisions of the Staff Regulations, and, in the absence of any express provision, the obligation to adopt implementing measures subject to the formal requirements of that article can be recognised only in exceptional circumstances, that is, when the provisions of the Staff Regulations are so unclear and imprecise that any application of them must be arbitrary. In that regard, the third paragraph of Article 1 of Annex X to the Staff Regulations is of general application and the general implementing provisions whose adoption it provides for concern the whole of Annex X to the Staff Regulations, including the provisions governing the grant of the allowance for living conditions. Consequently, a Union body implementing those provisions is under an obligation to adopt general implementing provisions for Article 10 of Annex X to the Staff Regulations, in accordance with the third paragraph of Article 1 of that annex. However, an official challenging a decision revising the amount of the allowance paid to officials serving in third countries cannot usefully rely on the lack of general implementing provisions unless the alleged irregularity is liable to affect him personally. In that regard, it must be pointed out that the main purpose of general implementing provisions is to set appropriate criteria to guide the administration in the exercise of its discretion or to make clear the scope of provisions of the Staff Regulations which are so unclear and imprecise that any application of them must be arbitrary. In so far as the fact that a provision is imprecise is not sufficient in itself to lead to that provision being applied arbitrarily, the person concerned would have no legal interest in raising such a plea unless the failure by the European External Action Service to adopt general implementing provisions had adversely affected him personally by leading the appointing authority to apply the provisions of Article 10 of Annex X to the Staff Regulations to his situation in a biased and arbitrary manner. (see paras 21, 23, 29, 33) See: judgment in Deboeck v Commission, 90/74, EU:C:1975:109 judgment in Ianniello v Commission, T‑308/04, EU:T:2007:347, para. 38 judgment in Behmer v Parliament, F‑47/07, EU:F:2009:103, para. 47 3. As regards the allowance for living conditions referred to in Annex X to the Staff Regulations, by not fixing any criterion for the determination of whether living conditions in third countries were equivalent to those in the countries of the European Union, the EU legislature intended to leave the appointing authority a wide discretion as regards the general implementing provisions which it was required to adopt in the future. That being so, where a Union body is in a period of adjustment on the date when a decision is adopted revising the amount of the allowance paid to officials serving in third countries, that fact could validly explain why, at that date, there were still no general implementing provisions capable of guiding its discretion in the application of Article 10 of Annex X to the Staff Regulations. Likewise, that body could, without committing any error of law and without exceeding its discretion, take account of criteria other than the parameters explicitly listed in the fourth subparagraph of Article 10(1) of Annex X to the Staff Regulations to assess that equivalence. In that regard, the use of data on the level of economic development achieved by the third countries at issue and of the method favouring a general economic approach based on the comparison of levels of economic development and taking account of the analyses made by other international organisations or some States for their diplomatic staff, in order to determine whether living conditions in third countries are equivalent to those in the countries of the European Union, does not appear to be contrary to Article 10(1) of Annex X to the Staff Regulations. That finding cannot be called into question by the fact that that method is different from that used in the past, since the method used fell within the limits of the appointing authority’s discretion and no rule obliged that authority to maintain its method unaltered. (see paras 53, 54, 56, 57) 4. The right to rely on the protection of legitimate expectations extends to any individual who is in a situation in which it is apparent that the administration has led him to entertain justified expectations by giving him precise assurances in the form of precise, unconditional and consistent information coming from authorised and reliable sources. The mere fact that an allowance for living conditions paid to staff serving in certain third countries has remained unchanged for several years is insufficient to enable those staff to rely on the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations since the provisions governing the award of the allowance provide expressly that it is subject to an annual evaluation and therefore that it may be altered from one year to the next or even abolished. (see paras 84, 85) See: judgment in Centeno Mediavilla and Others v Commission, T‑58/05, EU:T:2007:218, para. 96