ORDER OF THE CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL
(First Chamber)
30 November 2009
Case F-54/09
Giorgio Lebedef
v
Commission of the European Communities
(Civil service – Officials – Annual leave – Half-time secondment for the purposes of union representation – Unauthorised absence – Deduction from annual leave entitlement – Article 60 of the Staff Regulations – Action manifestly unfounded)
Application: brought under Articles 236 EC and 152 EA, in which Mr Lebedef seeks annulment of the decisions of 15 February, 1 April, 10 April,
20 May and 14 July 2008, all concerning the deduction of a total of 39 days from his leave entitlement for 2008.
Held: The action is dismissed as manifestly lacking any foundation in law. The applicant is to bear all the costs.
Summary
1.      Procedure – Decision taken by way of reasoned order – Conditions
(Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal, Art. 76)
2.      Officials – Representation – Protection of staff representatives
(Staff Regulations, Annex II, Art. 1, sixth para.)
1.      The Community judicature is entitled to assess, according to the circumstances of each case, whether the proper administration
of justice justifies the dismissal on the merits of an action which is manifestly unfounded pursuant to Article 76 of the
Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal, without first ruling on the objection of inadmissibility raised by the defendant.
That is true in a case where the approach adopted by the Tribunal in a previous judgment concerning the applicant may be transposed
mutatis mutandis, servatis servandis, to the case in question.
(see paras 45-46)
See:
F-32/08 Klein v Commission [2009] ECR-SC I‑A‑1‑0000 and II‑A‑1‑0000, para. 20 and the case-law cited therein; F-39/08 Lebedef v Commission [2009] ECR-SC I‑A‑1‑0000 and II‑A‑1‑0000
2.      Article 10 of the Framework Agreement of 27 January 2006 on relations between the Commission and the trade unions and staff
associations and the sixth paragraph of Article 1 of Annex II to the Staff Regulations have essentially the same content and
purpose, which is to protect staff representatives, the only basic difference being in their respective personal scope. The
sixth paragraph of Article 1 of Annex II to the Staff Regulations concerns representatives under the Staff Regulations, that
is to say members of the Staff Committee and officials appointed by the Committee to organs set up under the Staff Regulations,
while Article 10 of the Framework Agreement concerns trade union delegates and agents.
(see para. 49)
See:
Lebedef v Commission