Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2002:229
Date: 2002-09-26
Language of the case: French
Court formation: Third Chamber
Based on: Merger Treaty (1965)
Subject matter: Staff regulations and employment conditions - EC
Concepts: Conditions of engagement;Specific cases of acts having adverse effect;Equal treatment and non-discrimination;Principle of the protection of legitimate expectations;Termination of contract
Procedure: Staff cases - unfounded;Action for damages - unfounded

SUMMARY - CASE T-319/00 
Summary 
1. Officials - Actions — Act adversely affecting an official - Decision to offer 
temporary staff contracts for a fixed period to members of the auxiliary staff 
recruited after their dismissal by an association governed by the law of a Member 
State upon the termination by the Commission of a contract assigning assistance 
functions to it — Action based on the assertion of a right to be established as 
officials or to be given temporary staff contracts for an indefinite period — 
Admissibility 
(Staff Regulations, Art. 91(1)) 
2. Officials - Equal treatment - Refusal to recruit, by way of derogation from the 
provisions of the Staff Regulations, employees of an association governed by the law 
of a Member State, to which assistance functions have been assigned by the 
Commission — Recourse to derogating recruitment procedures in different contexts 
— Breach — None 
3. Officials - Principles - Protection of legitimate expectations - Conditions -
Refusal to recruit, by way of derogation from the provisions of the Staff Regulations, 
employees of an association governed by the law of a Member State, to which 
assistance functions have been assigned by the Commission — Breach — None 
4. Officials - Actions - Action for damages - No illegal act committed by the 
administration - Dismissal 
(Staff Regulations, Art. 91) 
I-A - 172 
BORREMANS AND OTHERS v COMMISSION 
1. Former employees of an international association governed by the law of a 
Member State, who were dismissed by that association when the Commission 
terminated the contract assigning to it tasks of providing technical assistance and 
managing expert contracts, and whom the Commission had, as an interim solution, 
recruited as members of the auxiliary staff, are entitled to bring an action for 
annulment against the Commission's decision to offer them temporary staff contracts 
under Article 2(b) of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants. 
That decision, which reflects the Commission's refusal to appoint the persons 
concerned as established officials or to offer them temporary staff contracts for an 
indefinite period, affects them adversely in so far as they maintain, relying inter alia 
on the principle of equal treatment as compared with employees of the same 
association who were previously appointed as established officials and on the 
principle of the protection of legitimate expectations, that they are entitled to be 
appointed as established officials or, at the very least, to be given temporary staff 
contracts for an indefinite period. 
(see paras 28-34, 37) 
2. There is a breach of the principle of equal treatment where two classes of persons 
whose factual and legal situations are not essentially different are treated differently 
or where different situations are treated in an identical manner. 
Thus, the employees of an international association governed by the law of a 
Member State, with which the Commission concluded an agreement assigning to it 
tasks of providing technical assistance and managing expert contracts, cannot claim, 
in support of their application for annulment of the Commission's decision offering 
them temporary staff contracts under Article 2(b) of the Conditions of Employment 
of Other Servants, that they have been the victims of a breach of the principle of 
equal treatment on the ground that, in the past, other employees of the same 
I-A - 173 
SUMMARY - CASE T-319/00 
association were entitled under Community regulations to be appointed as 
established officials by way of derogation from the provisions of the Staff 
Regulations concerning the recruitment of officials, where it is obvious that the 
context in which the decision they are contesting was taken is very different, in 
particular as regards recruitment policy, from that in which the regulations on which 
they seek to rely were adopted. Nor are they entitled to rely on other derogating 
recruitment measures since, on the one hand, a derogating measure cannot, by 
definition, serve as the basis of an argument by analogy and, on the other hand, 
those measures were introduced in a different context. 
(see paras 41-47) 
See: T-86/97 Apostolidis v Court of Justice [1998] ECR-SCI-A-167 and II-521, para. 61 
3. The right to claim the protection of legitimate expectations, which is one of the 
fundamental principles of the Community, extends to any individual who is in a 
situation from which it is clear that, in giving him specific assurances, the 
Community administration has led him to entertain reasonable expectations. 
In that regard, the employees of an international association governed by the law of 
a Member State are not entitled, in the absence of any specific assurances given by 
the Commission, to rely on legitimate expectations as to their appointment as 
established Commission officials. In particular, neither acts by which the 
Commission may, in the past, have appointed employees of that association as 
established officials nor the fact that, owing to the close relations which the 
association maintained with the Commission, the situation of its employees had 
become very similar to that of Community staff constitute specific assurances. The 
status of official or servant of the Communities cannot be accorded to the staff of 
such an association which cannot, whatever may be its relations with the 
Commission, be assimilated to an administrative unit of the Commission. Nor can 
specific assurances be inferred from internal Commission documents which, not 
I-A - 174 
BORREMANS AND OTHERS v COMMISSION 
being addressed to the persons concerned, cannot, on any view, be characterised as 
assurances given to them by the administration. 
(see paras 63-67) 
See: T-66/96 and T-221/97 Mellett v Court of Justice [1998] ECR-SC I-A-449 and 
II-1305, para. 104 
4. The Community can be held liable only if a number of conditions are satisfied 
as regards the illegality of the allegedly wrongful act committed by the institutions, 
the actual harm suffered and the existence of a causal link between the act and the 
damage alleged to have been suffered. 
An application for damages must therefore be dismissed where the condition relating 
to the illegality of the allegedly wrongful act committed by the institution is not 
fulfilled. 
(see paras 82-84) 
See: 111/86 Delauche v Commission [1987] ECR 5345, para. 30; T-82/91 Latham v 
Commission [1994] ECR-SC I-A-15 and II-61, para. 72 
I-A - 175