Order — ECLI:EU:T:2014:954
Date: 2014-11-11
Language of the case: French
Court formation: Eighth Chamber
Subject matter: Staff regulations and employment conditions - EC
Procedure: Action for damages - unfounded;Action for annulment - inadmissible
Origin: Belgium

Order of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 11 November 2014 — Bergallou v Parliament and Council (Case T‑22/14) Action for annulment — Reform of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union and the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union — Less favourable scheme for lump sum payment of travel expenses and increase of annual leave by additional days off for travelling time — No individual concern — Non-contractual liability — Causal link — Appeal in part manifestly inadmissible and in part unfounded in law 1. Actions for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Measures of direct and individual concern to them — Legislative measure — Regulation amending the Staff Regulations in relation to repayment of travel costs and travelling time — Action by an official based on the right to participate in procedures for amending the Staff Regulations and his belonging to a restricted class of officials affected by the measure — Not individually affected — Inadmissibility (Arts 263, fourth para., TFEU and 336 TFEU; Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Arts 27 and 28; Staff Regulations, Art. 10; Annex V, Art. 7; Annex VII, Art. 8; European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1023/2013) (see paras 24, 31, 32, 37, 41, 45-48) 2. Actions for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Measures of direct and individual concern to them — Individual concern — Burden of proof on the applicant (Art. 263, fourth para., TFEU) (see paras 43, 44) 3. Actions for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Measures of direct and individual concern to them — Action by an EU official concerning a regulation amending the Staff Regulations — Conditions for admissibility of a hypothetical action against administrative decisions implementing the amendments not relevant to question whether official individually affected — Absence (Arts 256 TFEU, 263, fourth para., TFEU and 270 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Annex I, Art. 1; Staff Regulations, Arts 90 and 91) (see paras 52, 53) 4. Actions for annulment — Natural and legal persons — Measures of direct and individual concern to them — Conditions cumulative in nature — Action inadmissible where only of those conditions met (Art. 263, fourth para., TFEU) (see para. 55) 5. Non-contractual liability — Conditions — Unlawfulness — Damage — Causal link — Cumulative conditions — No obligation on the court to examine in a given order — Absence of one of those conditions — Claim for compensation dismissed in its entirety (Arts 340, second para., TFEU) (see paras 60, 61) 6. Non-contractual liability — Conditions — Causal link — Damage suffered following allegedly unlawful adoption by the Parliament and the Council of a regulation amending the Staff Regulations — No direct link between the damage and the contested provisions (Art. 340, second para., TFEU; European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1023/2013) (see paras 62‑64) Re: First, application for annulment brought on the basis of Article 263 TFEU, Article 1(65)(b) and Article 1(67)(d) of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 1023/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2013 amending the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union and the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union (OJ 2013 L 287, p. 15), in so far as those provisions link the entitlement to reimbursement of travel expenses and travelling time for that travel to receipt of the expatriation or foreign-residence allowance, and, second, application for damages based on Article 340 TFEU, seeking compensation for material and non-material damage allegedly suffered by the applicant. Operative part 1. The action is dismissed. 2. Ms Amal Bergallou is ordered to bear her own costs and pay the costs incurred by the European Parliament and by the Council of the European Union. 3. There is no need to adjudicate on the application to intervene by the European Commission.