Judgment — ECLI:EU:F:2014:218
Date: 2014-09-18
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 - inadmissible;Action for damages - successful;Staff cases - successful

Summary 1. Actions brought by officials — Staff of the European Central Bank — Special appeal — Correspondence between the special appeal and the application — Same subject-matter and legal basis — Plea of illegality raised for the first time in the action — Admissibility (Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 47; Staff Regulations, Arts 90 and 91; Conditions of Employment for Staff of the European Central Bank, para. 41; European Central Bank Staff Rules, Art. 8.1) 2. Officials — Staff of the European Central Bank — Representation — Staff Committee — Mandatory consultation — Scope — Rules applicable to requests from staff for access to documents connected with their employment relationship — Included (Conditions of Employment for Staff of the European Central Bank, paras 48 and 49) 1. Paragraph 41 of the Conditions of Employment for Staff of the European Central Bank and Article 8.1 of the European Central Bank Staff Rules state that ECB staff may bring legal proceedings only after exhausting the pre-litigation procedure, which is in two stages: a request for pre-litigation review then a preliminary complaint. In line with what has been held with regard to Article 91 of the Staff Regulations, a rule of correspondence between the complaint and the application which follows it requires a plea raised before the Courts of the European Union to have been raised during the pre-litigation procedure, so that the administration has already been made aware of the criticisms levelled by the person concerned against the contested decision, failing which the application will be inadmissible. However, there are arguments connected with the purpose of the pre-litigation procedure, the nature of a plea of illegality and the principle of effective judicial protection which are against the idea that a plea of illegality raised for the first time in an action should be declared inadmissible solely on the ground that it has not been raised in the complaint preceding that action. (see paras 30, 31, 39, 54) See: judgment in Commission v Moschonaki, T‑476/11 P, EU:T:2013:557, para. 71 judgment in Cerafogli v ECB, F‑43/10, EU:F:2012:184, para. 61, on appeal before the General Court of the European Union, Case T‑114/13 P 2. Paragraph 49 of the Conditions of Employment for Staff of the European Central Bank imposes an obligation on the administration to consult the Staff Committee before adopting any act of general application concerning either the service rules themselves or matters relating to those rules and connected with any of the areas referred to in paragraph 48 of those Conditions of Employment. That consultation obligation only amounts to a right of the Staff Committee to be heard. It is therefore a modest form of participation in a decision-making process, since it does not involve any obligation for the administration to act upon the observations made by the Staff Committee in the course of the consultation. That being so, unless it is to undermine the effectiveness of the obligation to consult, the administration must comply fully with that obligation whenever consultation of the Staff Committee is liable to have an influence on the substance of the measure to be adopted. Moreover, the scope of the obligation to consult the Staff Committee must be assessed in the light of its objectives. First, that consultation is intended to afford all members of staff, through that committee (as the representative of their shared interests), the opportunity to be heard prior to the adoption or amendment of acts of general application which concern them. Second, compliance with that obligation is in the interests both of the various members of staff and of the administration in that it serves to avoid the need for each member of staff to raise, by way of an individual administrative procedure, the existence of possible errors. By the same token, such consultation, being such as to prevent the submission of a series of individual applications pursuing the same grievance, also serves the principle of sound administration. The rules applicable to requests from ECB staff to have access to internal documents connected with their employment relationship form part of the staff regulations referred to in paragraphs 48 and 49 of the Conditions of Employment and thus fall within the scope of those provisions. Consequently, the Staff Committee must be heard before such rules are adopted. (see paras 60-64) See: judgment in Cerafogli and Poloni v ECB, T‑63/02, EU:T:2003:308, paras 21, 22 and 24 judgments in Cerafogli v ECB, EU:F:2012:184, paras 47 and 49; and Andres and Others v ECB, F‑15/10, EU:F:2013:194, para. 191