Judgment — ECLI:EU:F:2009:86
Date: 2009-07-07
Language of the case: Dutch
Court formation: First Chamber
Based on: Merger Treaty (1965)
Subject matter: Staff regulations and employment conditions - EC
Concepts: Recruitment;Europol
Procedure: Staff cases - successful

Summary Officials – Members of the temporary staff – Recruitment – Renewal of a fixed-term contract – Administration's discretion – Staff of Europol (Europol Staff Regulations, Art. 6) The administration enjoys a wide discretion with regard to the renewal of fixed-term contracts of members of the temporary staff, and review by the Community judicature must be confined to ascertaining that there was no manifest error or misuse of powers. However, when the administration introduced, by an internal directive, a special system designed to ensure transparency in the procedures for renewing contracts, the adoption of that system was tantamount to a voluntary curb on the institution’s discretion, and it had the effect of altering the initial system relating to contract staff, characterised by the insecure nature of the fixed-term contracts, into a system in which the principle was to renew the contracts under certain conditions. A decision of a Community institution communicated to all its staff and setting out the criteria and procedure for the renewal or non-renewal of contracts constitutes an internal directive which must, as such, be regarded as a rule of conduct which the administration imposes on itself and from which it may not depart without specifying the reasons for doing so, since otherwise the principle of equality of treatment would be infringed. Because Europol introduced, by an internal directive, a special system in which the principle was to renew contracts under certain conditions, including the condition that the professional performance of members of staff, assessed on the basis of the annual evaluation report, had to be at least satisfactory, a decision refusing to renew a contract on the ground that the staff member’s professional performance was unsatisfactory, whereas he had obtained satisfactory marks overall in the evaluation reports, is vitiated by a manifest error of assessment. (see paras 46-48, 50, 51, 53) See: T-258/03 Mausolf v Europol [2005] ECR-SC I‑A‑45 and II‑189, paras 23, 25, 26, 47-49