Case T‑231/14 P
(publication by extracts)
European Medicines Agency (EMA)
v
David Drakeford
(Appeal — Civil service — Temporary staff — Fixed-term contract — Non-renewal decision — Article 8, first paragraph, of the CEOS — Reclassification of a fixed-term contract as a contract of indefinite duration — Unlimited jurisdiction)
Summary — Judgment of the General Court (Appeal Chamber), 16 September 2015
1.      EU law — Interpretation — Texts in several languages — Uniform interpretation — Consideration of different language versions — Interpretation by reference to the context and the purpose
2.      Officials — Members of the temporary staff — Members of the temporary staff falling under Article 2(a) of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants — Renewal after the first extension of the contract for a fixed period — Reclassification of the contract for an indefinite period — Purpose of the first paragraph of Article 8 of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants
(Conditions of Employment of other Servants, Arts 2(a), 8, first para., and 47)
3.      Appeal — Pleas in law — Invalid plea in law — Concept
(Art. 256(1) TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.)
1.      See the text of the decision.
(see para. 22)
2.      By holding that the objective of the first paragraph of Article 8 of the Conditions Employment of Other Servants was to guarantee a certain stability of employment, the Civil Service Tribunal erred in law. The objective of that provision is to prevent wrongful use by the administration of successive fixed-term contracts. Moreover, the limited objective of the article is confirmed by the recognised ability on the part of the administration to terminate at any time the employment relationship of a member of staff with a contract of indefinite duration, in compliance with the procedures set out in Article 47 of the CEOS. In that regard, the Civil Service Tribunal correctly held that the administration could at any time terminate a member of staff’s contract of indefinite duration, in compliance with the time-limit specified in Article 47(c)(i) of the CEOS, without calling into question the difference between civil servants and members of staff or the wide power of discretion that the administration has in its employment relations with the latter.
Moreover, the exception established by the Civil Service Tribunal to reclassification applying under the first paragraph of Article 8 of the CEOS in the event that the career path has been interrupted is the logical consequence of the interpretation of that article. The objective of the first paragraph of Article 8 is to prevent the situation arising where a temporary member of staff on a fixed-term contract has progressed in his career or where the duties he performs have changed and the administration makes wrongful use of contracts that are technically different in order to avoid reclassification under that article. However, the premiss of that reclassification is that the temporary member of staff, who is progressing in his career or whose duties are changing, maintains an employment relationship characterised by continuity with his employer. If a member of staff should enter into a contract containing a material, and not a technical, amendment to the nature of his duties, the premiss of the application of the first paragraph of Article 8 of the CEOS is no longer valid. Indeed, it would be contrary to the spirit of the first paragraph of Article 8 of the CEOS to allow every renewal to be taken into consideration for the purposes of the application of the rule contained in the article.
Admittedly, in the light of a prospective comparison of the tasks to be accomplished, the role of head of sector represents a material change from the role of deputy head of sector, giving rise to an interruption for the purposes of the concept determined by the Civil Service Tribunal. Even though remaining within the same field of activity does not automatically lead to continuity in the duties carried out, that continuity must, in principle, be excluded in the situation where access to the role of head of sector is subject to an external selection procedure. However, where, prior to his appointment as head of sector, the person concerned carried out the duties of interim head of sector, it cannot truly be said that, even though his appointment as head of sector was the result of an external procedure, it actually constituted an interruption in relation to the duties that he was carrying out beforehand.
(see paras 30, 33, 39-41)
3.      See the text of the decision.
(see paras 31, 38)