Order — ECLI:EU:F:2009:166
Date: 2009-11-30
Language of the case: French
Court formation: First Chamber
Based on: Merger Treaty (1965)
Subject matter: Staff regulations and employment conditions - EC
Concepts: General;Freedom of trade union activity
Procedure: Staff cases

Summary 1. Procedure – Decision taken by way of reasoned order – Conditions (Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal, Art. 76) 2. Officials – Representation – Protection of staff representatives (Staff Regulations, Annex II, Art. 1, sixth para.) 1. The Community judicature is entitled to assess, according to the circumstances of each case, whether the proper administration of justice justifies the dismissal on the merits of an action which is manifestly unfounded pursuant to Article 76 of the Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal, without first ruling on the objection of inadmissibility raised by the defendant. That is true in a case where the approach adopted by the Tribunal in a previous judgment concerning the applicant may be transposed mutatis mutandis, servatis servandis, to the case in question. (see paras 45-46) See: F-32/08 Klein v Commission [2009] ECR-SC I‑A‑1‑0000 and II‑A‑1‑0000, para. 20 and the case-law cited therein; F-39/08 Lebedef v Commission [2009] ECR-SC I‑A‑1‑0000 and II‑A‑1‑0000 2. Article 10 of the Framework Agreement of 27 January 2006 on relations between the Commission and the trade unions and staff associations and the sixth paragraph of Article 1 of Annex II to the Staff Regulations have essentially the same content and purpose, which is to protect staff representatives, the only basic difference being in their respective personal scope. The sixth paragraph of Article 1 of Annex II to the Staff Regulations concerns representatives under the Staff Regulations, that is to say members of the Staff Committee and officials appointed by the Committee to organs set up under the Staff Regulations, while Article 10 of the Framework Agreement concerns trade union delegates and agents. (see para. 49) See: Lebedef v Commission