Order — ECLI:EU:F:2015:102
Date: 2015-09-15
Language of the case: French
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 1. Officials — Working conditions — Internal directive of an institution — Legal effects — Limits — Observation of the hierarchy of norms (Staff Regulations, Art. 56, second para.) 2. Officials — Working conditions — Fixed allowance for overtime — Conditions for granting — Restrictive interpretation (Staff Regulations, Art. 56, second and third paras, Annex VI, Art. 3) 3. Social policy — Protection of the safety and health of workers — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Directive 2003/88 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time — Scope — Remuneration — Not included (Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 31(2); Directive 2003/88 of the European Parliament and of the Council, Art. 7(1)) 4. Actions brought by officials — Unlimited jurisdiction — Disputes of a financial character within the meaning of Article 91(1) of the Staff Regulations — Meaning — Action seeking payment of a sum claimed to be due by virtue of the Staff Regulations or another legal measure — Included (Staff Regulations, Art. 91(1)) 1. An Official cannot rely on an interpretation of an internal directive which would run counter to the very wording of the general provisions of the Staff Regulations, in order to contest the adoption of a decision withdrawing a fixed allowance for overtime by reason solely of his promotion to grade AST 5, and subsequently AST 6. In this regard, it is clear from the wording of the second paragraph of Article 56 of the Staff Regulations that overtime worked by officials in function group AST, grades AST 5 to AST 11, carries no right to compensation or remuneration. In any event, internal directives adopted by the institutions and bodies of the European Union may not lawfully, in any circumstances, lay down rules which derogate from hierarchically superior provisions, such as the provisions of the Staff Regulations and of the legislation adopted for their implementation. (see paras 54-56) See: Judgment of 25 October 2005 in Fardoom and Reinard v Commission, T‑43/04, EU:T:2005:374, para. 36 Judgment of 30 November 2009 in Voslamber v Commission, F‑86/08, EU:F:2009:161, para. 53 2. As regards the fixed allowance for overtime referred to in Article 56 of the Staff Regulations, the second and third paragraphs of that provision expressly exclude officials in function group AD and in function group AST, grades AST 5 to AST 11, from any right to compensation or remuneration for any overtime worked, and do not provide for any exception with regard to the nature of the duties performed or the fact that overtime may be worked regularly. Accordingly, an official is not justified in claiming that that restriction does not apply to officials who are called on to work overtime on a regular basis, such as chauffeurs, and thus that those officials are entitled to retain the benefit of the fixed allowance for overtime for their entire career, regardless of their classification in grade. In this regard, it is apparent on reading the first, second and third paragraphs of Article 56 of the Staff Regulations together that the legislature intended to protect officials against any obligation to work an excessive number of hours, while reserving the benefit of compensation or remuneration for overtime to solely those officials who are classified in the lowest levels on the grading scale and who, accordingly, receive lower remuneration than colleagues who, by reason amongst other things of seniority, are classified in a higher grade and receive higher remuneration. Furthermore, Annex VI to the Staff Regulations, relating to compensatory leave and remuneration for overtime, implements Article 56 of the Staff Regulations and specifies, within the limits laid down by that Article, the form and the amount of compensation which can be granted to officials in function group AST/SC, grades SC 1 to SC 6 and in function group AST, grades AST 1 to AST 4. Thus neither Annex VI to the Staff Regulations nor, a fortiori, Article 3 of that annex, can be read as derogating in any way from the principle laid down by Article 56 of the Staff Regulations in favour of officials in function group AST, grades AST 5 to AST 11. In any event, the benefit of the fixed allowance for overtime cannot be extended to categories of officials other than those expressly referred to in Article 3 of Annex VI to the Staff Regulations. Provisions conferring financial benefits must be interpreted strictly. (see paras 65, 67-70) See: Judgments of 18 September 2003 in Lebedef and Others v Commission, T‑221/02, EU:T:2003:239, para. 38, and 15 July 2004 in Valenzuela Marzo v Commission, T‑384/02, EU:T:2004:239, para. 104 Judgment of 7 October 2009 in Pappas v Commission, F‑101/08, EU:F:2009:137, para. 65 3. Article 31(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Article 6 of Directive 2003/88 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time, which impose a limit on maximum working hours and an obligation to provide daily and weekly rest periods, do not concern the remuneration of workers, still less the remuneration of overtime by means of a fixed allowance. (see para. 72) 4. ‘Disputes of a financial character’ within the meaning of Article 91(1) of the Staff Regulations include not only actions brought by officials and other staff members seeking to have an institution held liable, but also all those seeking payment by an institution to an official or other staff member of a sum which the latter considers to be due to him under the Staff Regulations or another measure governing their working relations. Under Article 91(1) of the Staff Regulations, the Union judicature has unlimited jurisdiction in disputes of a financial character, which entrusts it with the task of providing a complete solution to the disputes brought before it, that is to say, of ruling on all the rights and obligations of the official or other staff member, save for leaving it to the institution in question, under the control of the court, to implement such part of the judgment and under such precise conditions as the court shall determine. The Union judicature is therefore able, in an appropriate case, to order an institution to pay a sum to which the applicant is entitled under the Staff Regulations or another legal measure. (see paras 93, 94) See: Judgment of 18 December 2007 in Weißenfels v Parliament, C‑135/06 P, EU:C:2007:812, para. 65 Judgment of 2 July 2009 in Giannini v Commission, F‑49/08, EU:F:2009:76, paras 40 to 42