JUDGMENT OF THE CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL (Second Chamber)
25 October 2007
Case F-71/05
Arcangelo Milella and Delfina Campanella
v
Commission of the European Communities
(Civil service – Officials – Elections – Staff Committee – Appointment of representatives of the Commission’s Local Staff Committee for Luxembourg to the Central Staff Committee of
the Commission – Principle of overall proportional allocation of election results – Actions for annulment – Admissibility)
Application: brought under Articles 236 EC and 152 EA, in which Mr Milella and Mrs Campanella seek annulment, first, of the decision of
the Director General of the Personnel and Administration Directorate-General of the Commission of 18 April 2005 formally calling
on the Commission’s Local Staff Committee for Luxembourg to abide by ‘[t]he indications which appear in this decision’ when
appointing its representatives to the Commission’s Central Staff Committee, and second, of the decision of the same Director
General of 11 May 2005 confirming the validity of the appointments made by the Local Staff Committee for Luxembourg on 26
April and 10 May 2005 of its representatives to the Central Staff Committee; and a declaration that the decisions of the Local
Staff Committee for Luxembourg of 26 April and 10 May 2005 were unlawful.
Held: The decision of the Director General of the Personnel and Administration Directorate-General of the Commission of 18 April
2005 is annulled in so far as it formally called on the Commission’s Local Staff Committee for Luxembourg to abide by ‘[t]he
indications which appear in this decision’. The decision of the Director General of the Personnel and Administration Directorate-General
of the Commission of 11 May 2005 is annulled. The remainder of the action is dismissed. The Commission is ordered to pay the
costs.
Summary
1.      Officials – Actions – Disputes concerning elections to the Staff Committee – Jurisdiction of the Community judicature – Procedural
context
(Staff Regulations, Arts 90 and 91)
2.      Officials – Actions – Disputes concerning elections to the Staff Committee  – Interest in bringing proceedings – Status of
voter
(Staff Regulations, Arts 90 and 91)
3.      Officials – Actions – Act adversely affecting an official – Meaning – Decision of the appointing authority intended to ensure
the validity of the appointment of representatives of a Local Staff Committee of the Commission to its Central Staff Committee
(Staff Regulations, Arts 90 and 91)
4.      Officials – Representation – Staff Committee – Elections – Appointment of representatives of a Local Staff Committee of the
Commission to its Central Staff Committee
(Staff Regulations, Annex II, Art. 1)
1.      Although the Community judicature has jurisdiction in electoral disputes concerning the appointment of members of staff committees
on the basis of the provisions relating to actions by officials which are laid down by the Staff Regulations, that judicial
review is carried out only in connection with actions brought against the institution concerned regarding the acts or omissions
of the appointing authority arising from the exercise of its supervisory function.
(see para. 42)
See:
54/75 De Dapper and Others v Parliament [1976] ECR 1381, para. 24; 146/85 and 431/85 Diezler and Others v ESC [1987] ECR 4283, para. 5
T-182/94 Marx Esser and Del Amo Martinez v Parliament [1996] ECR-SC I‑A‑411 and II‑1197, paras 29 and 30
2.      As regards officials’ representative bodies, every person entitled to vote has an interest in ensuring that the representatives
of his organisation are elected in conditions and according to voting arrangements which comply with the provisions of the
Staff Regulations governing voting procedure in this context. In a dispute relating to those bodies an official, by virtue
of being entitled to vote, has an interest which is sufficient to render his application admissible. The mere fact that the
applicant is a person entitled to vote is sufficient to establish that he is not acting merely in the interests of the law
or of the institution.
(see para. 47)
See:
Diezler and Others v ESC, para. 9
T-368/94 Blanchard v Commission [1996] ECR II‑41, paras 35 and 37; T-192/96 Lebedef v Commission [1998] ECR-SC I‑A‑363 and II‑1047, para. 27; T-396/03 Vanhellemont v Commission [2005] ECR-SC I‑A‑355 and II‑1587, para. 29
3.      The decisions taken by the Director General of the Personnel and Administration Directorate-General of the Commission in order
to ensure the validity of the appointment of representatives from a Local Staff Committee of the Commission to its Central
Staff Committee fall within the duty of any institution to ensure that voting operations for the staff representative bodies
are properly conducted, and are therefore decisions against which a direct complaint may be lodged.
(see para. 54)
See:
De Dapper and Others v Parliament, para. 23
T-28/89 Maindiaux and Others v ESC [1990] ECR II‑59, para. 32; T-534/93 Grynberg and Hall v Commission [1994] ECR-SC I‑A‑183 and II‑595, para. 21; Marx Esser and Del Amo Martinez v Parliament, para. 34
4.      A decision of the appointing authority which puts pressure on a Local Staff Committee of the Commission to appoint its representatives
to the Central Staff Committee using the d’Hondt method, whereas the rules on the composition and operation of the Commission’s
Staff Committee allow each Local Staff Committee complete freedom to choose how it appoints its representatives, providing
that the method is consistent with the principle of the overall proportional allocation of election results set out in the
final paragraph of Article 14 of those rules, must be annulled.
In taking such a decision the appointing authority disregards its duty to ensure that officials can appoint their representatives
in complete freedom and has thereby exceeded its task of preventing or censuring only manifest irregularities, which in this
instance are those committed in connection with the rule on overall proportional allocation.
In proceeding in that manner, the appointing authority also infringes the provisions of the third paragraph of Article 1 of
Annex II to the Staff Regulations, according to which it is solely for the general meeting of officials of the institution
in service at the relevant place of employment to lay down the manner in which the representatives of the local section are
appointed to the Central Staff Committee.
(see paras 70-71, 75, 77-78)
See:
De Dapper and Others v Parliament, para. 22
Maindiaux and Others v ESC, para. 32