Order — ECLI:EU:T:2002:235
Date: 2002-09-30
Based on: Merger Treaty (1965)
Subject matter: Staff regulations and employment conditions - EC
Concepts: Interpretation of provisions of the Staff Regulations;Appointing authority;Special leave
Procedure: Staff cases - unfounded

SUMMARY - CASE T-25/01 
Summary 
1. Officials - Appointing authority — Powers - Exercise — Sub-delegation — 
Whether permissible - Conditions 
(Staff Regulations, Art. 2) 
2. Officials - Leave - Special leave - Special leave for elections - Travelling 
time - Reduction in the case of travel by air - Lawfulness 
(Staff Regulations, Art. 57, second para. ; Annex V, Art. 7) 
3. Officials - Internal directive of an institution - Amendment - Whether 
permissible - Condition - Compliance with the Staff Regulations 
1. A sub-delegation or deviation from the criteria for division of the powers 
conferred by the Staff Regulations on the appointing authority cannot render void 
an act done by the administration unless such sub-delegation or deviation involves 
the possibility of adversely affecting one of the guarantees given to officials by the 
Staff Regulations or the principles of good administration in staff management. 
(see para. 40) 
See: 46/72 De Greef v Commission [1973] ECR 543, para. 21; 49/72 Drescig v 
Commission [1973] ECR 565, para. 13; T-23/96 De Persio v Commission [1998] ECR-SC 
I-A-483 and II-1413, paras 110 to 112 
I-A - 186 
VIANA FRANÇA v COMMISSION 
2. The second paragraph of Article 57 of the Staff Regulations provides that it is 
only 'exceptionally' that an official 'may' be granted special leave and Article 7 at 
the end of Annex V to the Staff Regulations provides that 'any' travelling time is 
to be fixed by special decision 'taking into account particular needs'. Consequently, 
it cannot be disputed that an institution is perfectly entitled to modify its previous 
practice and to fix the travelling time in connection with special leave for elections 
on the basis of the time actually needed to travel to and return from the place of 
voting. In that regard, it may reasonably be held, in accordance with the principle 
of sound management of Community funds, that, in the case of travel by air, that 
time will be limited to two days in total. 
(see paras 58-59) 
3. There is nothing to prevent an institution from amending an indicative rule of 
conduct which it imposes on itself and is contained in an internal decision of a 
general nature, provided that the amended rule of conduct remains consistent with 
the provisions and aims of the Staff Regulations. 
(see para. 62) 
See: T-134/96 Smets v Commission [1997] ECR II-2333, para. 65 
I-A - 187