Judgment — ECLI:EU:F:2015:127
Date: 2015-10-29
Language of the case: French
Court formation: Single Judge
Based on: Merger Treaty (1965)
Subject matter: Staff regulations and employment conditions - EC
Procedure: Staff cases - unfounded;Action for damages - unfounded

Summary 1. Officials — Automatic retirement — Examination of a request to remain in service — Criteria — Interests of the service (Staff Regulations, Art. 52, second para) 2. Officials — Automatic retirement — Examination of a request to remain in service — Criteria — Interests of the service — Factors to be taken into consideration (Staff Regulations, Art. 52, second para) 1. It is clear from the wording of the second paragraph of Article 52 of the Staff Regulations that the appointing authority may grant authorisation to carry on working beyond the age of automatic retirement to officials who request to do so where it considers it justified in the interests of the service. Therefore, without there being any need even to refer to the purpose of that provision, the literal interpretation of the second paragraph of Article 52 of the Staff Regulations goes against the argument that authorisation to remain in active service until the age of 67 should be granted to any official who has requested to do so, provided the interests of the service does not preclude this. Moreover, it is true that, according to the second paragraph of Article 52 of the Staff Regulations, the decision to allow an official to remain in active service between the ages of 67 and 70 may be taken ‘exceptionally’, although that qualifier is not present in respect of remaining in active service until the age of 67. However, the addition of that qualifier in respect of authorisation to remain in active service beyond the age of 67 does not justify the interpretation that, in order for a staff member to remain in active service until the age of 67, the administration need not establish the existence of interests of the service at that time. That term merely indicates that the number of officials authorised to remain in service beyond the age of 67 must be limited in order to respect the exceptional nature of that derogation, without affecting the scope of the examination of the interests of the service which must, in any event, be carried out by the appointing authority. (see paras 33-35) See: Judgment of 7 October 2009 in Pappas v Commission, F‑101/08, EU:F:2009:137, paras 62 to 64 2. Where the appointing authority must take into account the interests of the service in the context of the examination of a request to remain in active service beyond the automatic retirement age, it must take into consideration factors relating to the implementation of a general staffing policy and the organisation of its services; taking into account the interests of the service in the examination of such a request is not just a matter of deciding whether the skills of the person concerned are appropriate for the functions being performed. (see para. 50) See: Judgment of 18 May 2015 in Bischoff v Commission, F‑36/14, EU:F:2015:48, para. 47