Judgment — ECLI:EU:F:2015:117
Date: 2015-10-08
Language of the case: English
Court formation: Second Chamber
Based on: Merger Treaty (1965)
Subject matter: Staff regulations and employment conditions - EC
Procedure: Staff cases - unfounded;Staff cases - inadmissible;Action for damages - unfounded

Summary Officials — Members of the contract staff — Recruitment — Renewal of a fixed-term contract — Administration's discretion — Judicial review — Limits — Manifest error of assessment — Meaning (Conditions of Employment of Other Servants, Arts 47(b) and 119) A member of the contract staff with a contract of fixed duration does not in principle have any right to have his contract renewed, such renewal being a mere possibility, subject to the condition that renewal is in keeping with the interest of the service. In this connection, the administration has a broad discretion with regard to the renewal of a contract. When the Tribunal has before it an action for annulment directed against an act adopted in the exercise of that discretion, it must restrict itself to ascertaining whether, regard being had to the factors and reasons that led the administration to its assessment, the administration remained within unimpeachable limits and did not manifestly misuse its power. An error may be classified as manifest only where it is easily recognisable and can be readily detected, in the light of the criteria to which the legislature intended the administration’s exercise of its discretion to be subject. Consequently, in order to establish that the administration committed a manifest error in assessing the facts such as to justify the annulment of a decision taken on the basis of that assessment, the evidence, which it is for the applicant to adduce, must be sufficient to make the findings of the administration implausible. In other words, a plea alleging a manifest error must be rejected if, despite the evidence adduced by the applicant, the disputed assessment may still be accepted as justified and consistent. (see paras 72-74) See: Judgments of 11 July 2012 in AI v Court of Justice, F‑85/10, EU:F:2012:97, paragraphs 152 and 153 and the case-law cited therein, and 19 February 2013 in BB v Commission, F‑17/11, EU:F:2013:14, paragraph 57 and the case-law cited therein.