Decision to review — ECLI:EU:C:2014:2219
Date: 2014-09-09
Language of the case: French
Court formation: Special Chamber (review)
Based on: Merger Treaty (1965)
Subject matter: Staff regulations and employment conditions - EC
Procedure: Appeal;Staff cases;Review

Summary — Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber), 10 September 2015 1. Actions brought by officials — Jurisdiction of the Civil Service Tribunal — Action for damages brought by the family members of a deceased official as persons to whom the Staff Regulations apply — Included (Art. 270 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Annex I, Art. 1; Staff Regulations of Officials, Arts 73, 90 and 91) 2. Actions brought by officials — Unlimited jurisdiction — Disputes of a financial character within the meaning of Article 91(1) of the Staff Regulations — Definition –Action for damages brought by the family members of a deceased official — Included — Condition — Origin of the action in the employment relationship connecting the deceased official with the institution concerned (Arts 270 TFEU and 340 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Annex I, Art. 1; Staff Regulations of Officials, Arts 90 and 91(1)) 3. Review — Finding of an adverse effect on the unity and consistency of EU law — Introduction by the General Court of a jurisdiction rule to its advantage of a type that would have consequences for the structure of the levels of jurisdiction within the Court of Justice — Existence of an adverse effect on the unity of EU law (Arts 256 TFEU, 257 TFEU and 270 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 62b, first para., and Annex I, Art. 1; Staff Regulations of Officials, Art. 91(1); Council Decision 2004/752) 4. Review — Finding of an adverse effect on the unity and consistency of EU law — Implications — Judgment set aside and case referred back to the appeal court (Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 62b) 1. As regards the jurisdiction ratione personae of the Civil Service Tribunal, the provisions of Articles 90(2) and 91(1) of the Staff Regulations which refer in general terms to any person to whom the Staff Regulations apply, do not, as such, permit a distinction to be made between an application brought by an official and one brought by any other person referred to in the regulations. Consequently, the Civil Service Tribunal has jurisdiction ratione personae to hear and determine not only applications brought by officials but also applications brought by any other person referred to in those regulations. In that regard, Article 73(2)(a) of the Staff Regulations expressly identifies the descendants and the ascendants of the official as the persons who may, in the event of the death of that official, receive a benefit. Therefore, both the father of a deceased official and the children of that official are persons covered by that provision. Consequently, the question of whether the father of the deceased official and the children of that official actually have a right to payments guaranteed by the Staff Regulations, in particular those referred to in Article 73 of those regulations, may not be taken into consideration in determining the jurisdiction ratione personae of the Civil Service Tribunal on the basis of Article 1 of Annex I to the Statute of the Court of Justice, read together with Article 270 TFEU and Article 91(1) of the Staff Regulations. (see paras 33-35) 2. On the question of whether the jurisdiction ratione materiae of the Civil Service Tribunal extends to actions for damages based on the failure of an institution to fulfil its obligation to ensure the protection of its officials, both Article 270 TFEU and Article 91 of the Staff Regulations, which relate to any dispute between the Union and its servants, refrain from defining the type of action available in the event of rejection of an administrative complaint. Consequently, where a dispute relates to the legality of an act adversely affecting an applicant, within the meaning of Article 90 of those regulations, the Civil Service Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear and determine it whatever, moreover, the type of action at issue. Accordingly, the Civil Service Tribunal has jurisdiction ratione materiae to hear and determine an action in damages brought by an official against the institution by whom he is or was employed, where the dispute originates in the employment relationship between the person concerned and the institution. The same is true of an action for damages brought by anyone who, although not an official, is covered by the Staff Regulations as a result of family ties he has with an official, since the dispute has its origin in the employment relationship between that official and the institution concerned, having regard to the fact that Article 1 of Annex I to the Statute of the Court of Justice, read in conjunction with Article 270 TFEU and Article 91 of the Staff Regulations, confers on the Civil Service Tribunal the jurisdiction to hear and determine any dispute between the European Union and any person to whom the Staff Regulations apply. In addition, the fact that the non-contractual liability of the European Union in relation to family members of the official mentioned in the Staff Regulations is subject to substantive conditions stemming from Article 340 TFEU, whereas liability in respect of the official obeys particular rules that form a special category by reference to those conditions, may not exclude in that respect the jurisdiction ratione materiae of the Civil Service Tribunal pursuant to Article 1 of Annex I to the Statute of the Court of Justice, read in conjunction with Article 270 TFEU and Article 91(1) of the Staff Regulations. The jurisdiction ratione materiae of that court derives from the origin of the dispute and not from the legal basis giving rise to the right to compensation. (see paras 37, 41, 42, 49, 50) 3. A decision of the General Court which, on the one hand, held that the Civil Service Tribunal has a special jurisdiction only vis-à-vis officials and, on the other hand, referred an action by the heirs and successors of an official to itself so that it might hear and determine it as a court of first instance, thus depriving the Civil Service Tribunal of its original jurisdiction and putting in place a jurisdiction rule to its advantage which is of a type that would have consequences for the determination of the court with jurisdiction in appeals and, as a consequence, on the structure of the levels of jurisdiction within the Court of Justice, adversely affects the unity of EU law within the meaning of Article 62b, first paragraph, of the Statute of the Court of Justice. The judicial system at present set out in the FEU Treaty, the Statute of the Court of Justice and Decision 2004/752 establishing the European Union Civil Service Tribunal contains a precise delimitation of the respective jurisdictions of the three courts of the Court of Justice, namely, the Court of Justice, the General Court and the Civil Service Tribunal, so that the jurisdiction of one of those three courts to rule on an action necessarily excludes the jurisdiction of the other two. The rules on the jurisdiction of the courts of the European Union, as laid down by the FEU Treaty and also by the Statute of the Court of Justice and the Annex thereto, form part of primary law and are central to the EU legal order. Respect for those rules, beyond the issues involved in being the only jurisdiction for EU civil service disputes, constitutes a fundamental requirement in that legal order and is crucial in ensuring the unity of EU law. (see paras 54-58) 4. See the text of the decision. (see paras 59-61)