Order — ECLI:EU:F:2015:34
Date: 2015-04-23
Language of the case: French
Court formation: First Chamber
Based on: Merger Treaty (1965)
Subject matter: Staff regulations and employment conditions - EC
Procedure: Staff cases - inadmissible

Summary 1. Judicial proceedings — Decision taken by way of reasoned order — Conditions — Action manifestly inadmissible or manifestly lacking any foundation in law — Scope (Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal, Art. 81) 2. Actions brought by officials — Act adversely affecting an official — Definition — First salary statement after an increase in weekly working hours imposed by legislation — Not included (Staff Regulations, Arts 55, 90 and 91; Conditions of Employment of Other Servants, Arts 1, 16 and 91) 3. Officials — Equal treatment — Different treatment for different categories of persons employed by the European Union as regards guarantees under the Staff Regulations — No discrimination 1. Under Article 81 of the Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal, where an action is, in whole or in part, manifestly inadmissible or manifestly lacking any foundation in law, the Tribunal may, by reasoned order, give a decision on the action without taking further steps in the proceedings. In particular, the dismissal of an action by reasoned order made on the basis of Article 81 of the Rules of Procedure not only benefits procedural economy, but also saves the parties the costs entailed by the holding of a hearing, if, upon reading the case-file, the Tribunal, provided that it considers itself to be sufficiently informed by the documents before it, is entirely convinced of the manifest inadmissibility of the application or that it is manifestly lacking any foundation in law and further considers that the holding of a hearing would be unlikely to provide new evidence capable of affecting that belief. (see paras 27, 28) See: Order of 10 July 2014 in Mészáros v Commission, F‑22/13, EU:F:2014:189, para. 39 and the case-law cited therein 2. As regards the admissibility of an action by a member of the contract staff directed against his first salary statement after an increase in his weekly working hours, the salary statement may not be regarded as an act adversely affecting him in that it reflects for the first time a unilateral change by the staff member’s employer of the conditions of employment laid down in his contract and, more particularly, a reduction in his hourly rate of pay. First of all, the unilateral change in the contractual relationship between the staff member concerned and the administration was adopted not by his institutional employer but by the EU legislature — the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union — under the ordinary legislative procedure. In the present case, the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants apply, according to Article 1 of those Conditions, to the contract of any servant engaged by the European Union. Some conditions of employment, such as those relating to the remuneration of staff and their working hours, are determined by the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants, which is a legislative act adopted by the legislature, and are not at the discretion of the institutions, bodies, offices and agencies of the Union in the exercise of their contractual freedom as authorities authorised to conclude contracts of employment. Secondly, the Union legislature may at any time, in compliance with the provisions of the Treaties, the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and the general principles of law, amend the rights and obligations of EU officials and other staff by means of regulations, adopted pursuant to Article 336 TFEU, amending the Staff Regulations and the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants; those amendments apply, in the absence of a derogation, to the future consequences of situations that arose under the previous legislation. In particular, amendments relating to working hours as defined by Article 55 of the Staff Regulations also apply to members of the temporary and contract staff, pursuant to Articles 16 and 91 of the Conditions of Employment. Furthermore, it is clear from the provisions of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants that staff employed on the basis of a contract are paid according to their classification in grade and step within their function group and that, in that connection, they receive a monthly salary which, technically, does not depend on their normal working hours, which may range, according to the new wording of Article 55(2) of the Staff Regulations, from a minimum of 40 to a maximum of 42 hours a week, depending on any decision taken in that regard by the institution, body, office or agency employing them. Thus the reduction in the hourly rate of pay does not constitute a unilateral decision by the employer of the staff member concerned, but is merely the consequence, in practice, of a legislative amendment to the relevant provisions of the Staff Regulations and the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants. (see paras 38-42) See: Judgment of 22 December 2008 in Centeno Mediavilla and Others v Commission, C‑443/07 P, EU:C:2008:767, paras 60 and 61 3. The principle of equal treatment cannot be relied on to call into question the differences in status between members of the local staff on the one hand and officials or other staff on the other, since those objective legal differences in terms of the guarantees provided by the Staff Regulations, classification, remuneration and social benefits are of a fundamental nature. Thus, the argument of a member of the contract staff that an increase in the weekly working hours brought about by the amendment of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants accentuated the discriminatory difference in hourly pay between the staff member concerned and a colleague who was a member of the local staff may not be upheld. (see para. 43) See: Order of 9 July 2007 in De Smedt v Commission, T‑415/06 P, EU:T:2007:205, paras 54 and 55 Judgment of 19 October 2006 in De Smedt v Commission, F‑59/05, EU:F:2006:105, para. 76