Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2012:133
Date: 2012-03-20
Language of the case: French
Court formation: Appeals Chamber
Based on: Merger Treaty (1965)
Subject matter: Staff regulations and employment conditions - EC
Procedure: Appeal - unfounded;Staff cases

Summary 1. Officials — Recruitment — Appointment in grade — Introduction of a new career structure by Regulation No 723/2004 — Transitional provisions for classification in grade (Staff Regulations, Art. 31(1); Annex XIII, Art. 5(4); Council Regulation No 723/2004) 2. Officials — Recruitment — Appointment in grade — Introduction of a new career structure by Regulation No 723/2004 — Transitional provisions for classification in grade (Staff Regulations, Annex XIII, Art. 5(4); Council Regulation No 723/2004) 3. Appeals — Grounds — Inadequate statement of reasons — Tribunal stating its reasons by implication — Lawfulness — Conditions (Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 36 and Annex I, Art. 7(1)) 1. By virtue of the clear and express provisions of Article 5(4) of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations, both a competition for transfer into a higher category and an internal competition must enable a successful candidate to change categories, which cannot normally be achieved by succeeding in a general competition. A strict literal interpretation of that provision dictates the view, firstly, that it does not relate to temporary staff who have succeeded in an open competition, as such a competition cannot normally lead to recruitment with transfer to a new category, and secondly, that its wording does not leave any discretion to the administration to interpret and apply it differently. Moreover, a purposive and contextual interpretation of the provision does not detract from that assessment. The objective pursued in limiting the benefit of this exceptional transitional rule to temporary staff who had succeeded either in a competition for transfer into a new category, or an internal competition, was to encourage staff to participate in such a competition in order to become established officials while simultaneously obtaining a transfer into another category. By contrast, an open competition is open to all interested parties, including those external to the institutions, and is thus not designed to combine recruitment and establishment with transfer into a new category. In those circumstances, there is no reason to think that the legislature wished to extend the benefit of Article 5(4) of Annex XIII to the regulations to temporary staff who have succeeded in an open competition. (see paras 46, 48-49) See: 176/73 Van Belle v Council [1974] ECR 1361, para. 8 T‑237/00 Reynolds v Parliament [2005] ECR-SC I‑A‑385 and II‑1731, para. 101 2. There is a breach of the principle of equal treatment where two categories of persons whose factual and legal situations are not essentially different receive different treatment or where different situations are treated in the same way. Thus, staff placed in identical situations must be subject to the same rules and the Union legislature must take account of objective differences in the circumstances or situations in which those concerned find themselves. Furthermore, in a matter involving the exercise of discretion, such as the making of transitional rules intended to ensure a fair transition from an earlier regulatory regime to a new regime, that principle is disregarded where the institution makes a differentiation which is arbitrary or manifestly inappropriate in relation to the objective pursued by the regulations in question. Moreover, the question of whether the general principle of equal treatment has been complied with is a question of law, and accordingly the General Court has jurisdiction to verify the comparability of the various situations in issue. In order to make a correct determination as to their comparability, it is necessary to have regard to the objective pursued by the relevant regulations. In this regard, temporary staff who are candidates in an open competition held in order to fill posts in the category to which they already belong are not in the same position as successful candidates in a competition the purpose or effect of which is to enable them to transfer to a higher category and thus to make decisive progress in their career. The fact that the legislature, in adopting Article 5(4) of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations, ensured that temporary staff in the latter position may, as an exception, be appointed as probationary officials in the grade they held in their former category, does not have the effect of applying an arbitrary or manifestly inappropriate distinction, in the light of the objective pursued by the legislature, compared with temporary staff recruited as officials, following an open competition, in the category to which they previously belonged. (see paras 54-56) See: C‑227/04 P Lindorfer v Council [2007] ECR I‑6767, para. 64; C‑127/07 Arcelor Atlantique et Lorraine and Others [2008] ECR I‑9895, para. 26; C‑176/09 Luxembourg v Parliament and Council [2011] ECR I‑3727, para. 32 T‑359/07 P to T‑361/07 Commission v Bertolete and Others [2009] ECR-SC I‑B‑1‑5 and II‑B‑1‑21, para. 38 and the case‑law cited, paras 39, 43 et seq. 3. The obligation of the Civil Service Tribunal to state reasons, pursuant to Article 36 and Article 7(1) of Annex I to the Statute of the Court of Justice, does not require it to provide an account that follows exhaustively and point by point all the arguments put forward by the parties to the case. The reasoning may therefore be implicit, on condition that it enables the persons concerned to know the reasons for which a particular ruling was made and provides the competent court with sufficient material for it to exercise its power of review. However, that requirement cannot be interpreted as meaning that the Civil Service Tribunal is obliged to respond in detail to every single argument advanced by the applicant, particularly if the argument was not sufficiently clear and precise and was not adequately supported by evidence. (see para. 72) See: 21 January 2010, C‑150/09 P Iride and Iride Energia v Commission, not published in the ECR, para. 42; C‑201/09 P and C‑216/09 P ArcelorMittal Luxembourg v Commission and Commission v ArcelorMittal Luxembourg and Others [2011] ECR I‑2239, para. 78 T‑498/07 P Krcova v Court of Justice [2009] ECR-SC I‑B‑1‑35 and II‑B‑1‑197, para. 34; 2 March 2010, T‑248/08 P Doktor v Council, not published in the ECR, para. 64 and the case‑law cited