62016CJ0377_RES
Case C‑377/16
Kingdom of Spain
v
European Parliament
Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber), 26 March 2019
(Actions for annulment — Rules on languages — Selection procedure for contract staff — Call for expressions of interest — Drivers — Function group I — Knowledge of languages — Restriction of the choice of language 2 of the selection procedure to English, French and German — Language of communication — Regulation No 1 — Staff Regulations — Conditions of Employment of Other Servants — Discrimination based on language — Justification — Interests of the service)
Officials — Members of the contract staff — Recruitment — Call for expressions of interest to constitute a database of candidates to be recruited as contractual agents — Languages of communication between the European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) and candidates — Restriction — Lawfulness — Statement of reasons — Justification having regard to the interests of the service — Observance of the principle of proportionality
(Staff Regulations, Art. 1d(1) and (6); Conditions of Employment of Other Servants, Art. 80(4); Council Regulation No 1, Arts 2 and 5)
(see paragraphs 38-40, 44, 47, 51)
Officials — Members of the contract staff — Recruitment — Call for expressions of interest to constitute a database of candidates to be recruited as contractual agents — Restriction on the choice of second language — Discrimination based on language — Justification having regard to the interests of the service — None
(Staff Regulations, Art. 1d(6))
(see paragraphs 63, 67, 70, 72-74, 78)
Officials — Members of the contract staff — Recruitment — Call for expressions of interest to constitute a database of candidates to be recruited as contractual agents — Restriction on the choice of second language — Judicial review — Scope
(Staff Regulations, Art. 1d(6))
(see paragraphs 68, 69)
Actions brought by officials — Judgment annulling a measure — Effects — Annulment of a call for expressions of interest to constitute a database of candidates to be recruited as contractual agents — Legitimate expectations of the candidates selected — Limitation of temporal effect — Precluded
(Art. 266 TFEU; Staff Regulations, Art. 91)
(see paragraphs 83-88)
Résumé
In the staff selection procedures for the EU institutions, differences of treatment on the basis of language are not, in principle, allowed
In the judgment in Spain v Parliament (C‑377/16), delivered on 26 March 2019, the Court annulled, in the context of an action for annulment under Article 263 TFEU, a call for expressions of interest issued by the European Parliament for the recruitment of contract staff in order to perform the duties of drivers, which restricted the choice of language 2 of the selection procedure to English, French and German and the use of those language as languages of communications for the purpose of those procedures.
On 14 April 2016, the European Parliament issued a call for expressions of interest with a view to establishing a database of candidates for recruitment as contract staff members to act as drivers. Title IV of that call provided that the recruitment in question was subject to ‘a thorough knowledge … of German, English or French’ as ‘language 2’. According to the Parliament, that restriction was in the interest of the service requiring ‘newly recruited staff to be immediately operational and able to communicate effectively in their daily work’, those three languages being the most widely employed in that institution. Candidates were also required to submit their applications using an online registration form available only in these three languages on the website of the European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO).
As regards a possible restriction on the choice of languages for communications between candidates and EPSO in the selection procedure in question, the Court held that it could not be ruled out that candidates could have been deprived of the possibility of using the official language of their choice to submit their applications and could therefore have been subject to a difference in treatment based on language. In this context, the Court pointed out inter alia that, in accordance with Article 2 of Regulation No 1/58, (
1
) documents sent to the institutions of the European Union by a person subject to the jurisdiction of a Member State are drafted in one of the official languages referred to in Article 1 of that regulation selected by the sender. That right to choose, from among the official languages of the European Union, the language to be used in trade with the institutions is fundamental, as an essential component of respect for the linguistic diversity of the European Union, the importance of which is set out in the fourth subparagraph of Article 3(3) TEU and in Article 22 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. Nevertheless, in the specific context of the selection procedures for EU staff, the institutions may make provision for restrictions on the use of official languages, provided that such restrictions are, in accordance with Article 1d(6) of the Staff Regulations, as applied to members of the contract staff under Article 80(4) of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants (CEOS), (
2
) objectively and reasonably justified by a legitimate objective of general interest in the framework of staff policy and are proportionate to the aim pursued. In the present case, the European Parliament has not provided any reason capable of demonstrating the existence of such a legitimate objective of general interest capable of justifying the restriction on the languages of communication to English, French and German.
As regards the issue of the restriction of the choice of language 2 to those languages for the selection procedure itself, the Court found that candidates whose language skills did not allow them to meet that requirement were deprived of the opportunity to participate in that selection procedure, even if they had sufficient knowledge, in accordance with the conditions laid down in Article 82(3)(e) of the CEOS, of at least two official languages of the Union. That restriction may constitute a difference in treatment on grounds of language. Although the interest of the service may require, on the basis of a legitimate objective of general interest, that the persons recruited have a specific knowledge of languages, it is for the institution restricting the language regime of a selection procedure, which has broad discretion in that regard, to establish that such a restriction is such as to meet real needs relating to the duties to be performed; that restriction must be proportionate to that interest and be based on clear, objective and foreseeable criteria enabling candidates to understand the reasons for it and the Courts of the European Union to review its legality. In the present case, the Court held that the reasons given in Title IV of the call for expressions of interest were not in themselves sufficient to establish that the duties of a driver in the European Parliament required knowledge of one of the three languages in question, to the exclusion of the other official languages of the Union. In so far as the European Parliament did not, furthermore, adopt, pursuant to Article 6 of Regulation No 1/58, internal rules of procedure governing the application of its language regime, it cannot be stated, without regard to the duties that the persons recruited will actually be called upon to perform, that those three languages are necessarily the most useful languages for all the duties in that institution. As regards the fact that the description of the duties required to be carried out by the drivers recruited showed that they carry out the bulk of their duties in Brussels, Luxembourg and Strasbourg, that is to say, three cities in Member States which include in their official languages the French or German languages, the Court held that it was not sufficient to justify the restriction at issue. The Parliament did not show that the restriction to each of the languages designated as language 2 of the selection procedure was objectively and reasonably justified in the light of the functional specificities of the posts to be filled and why, on the other hand, the languages chosen did not include other official languages that might be relevant for such posts.
Finally, as regards the consequences of the annulment of the call for expressions of interest, the Court of Justice held that the database constituted for that purpose should be annulled. It took the view that the candidates who had been registered in that database had not received any guarantee of recruitment and, therefore, that the mere inclusion of candidates in that database was not capable of giving rise to a legitimate expectation requiring that the effects of the call for expression of interest be maintained in force. By contrast, the annulment did not have any effect on possible recruitments already to be recruited.
(
1
)	Council Regulation (EEC) No 1 determining the languages to be used by the European Economic Community (OJ, English Special Edition 1952-1958 (I), p. 59), as amended by Council Regulation (EU) No 517/2013 of 13 May 2013 (OJ 2013 L 158, p. 1).
(
2
)	Regulation (EEC, Euratom, ECSC) No 259/68 of the Council of 29 February 1968 laying down the Staff Regulations of Officials and the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Communities and instituting special measures temporarily applicable to officials of the Commission (OJ, English Special Edition 1968 (I), p. 30), as amended by Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 1023/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2013 (OJ 2013 L 287, p. 15).