62012FO0060_EN
Parties
Grounds
Operative part
Parties
In Case F‑60/12,
ACTION brought under Article 270 TFEU, applicable to the EAEC Treaty pursuant to Article 106a thereof,
CA, a former official of the European Commission, residing in Brussels (Belgium), represented by E. Guerrieri Ciaceri, lawyer,
applicant,
v
European Commission,
represented by J. Currall and C. Berardis-Kayser, acting as Agents,
defendant,
THE CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL
(First Chamber)
composed of H. Kreppel, President, E. Perillo and R. Barents (Rapporteur), Judges,
Registrar: W. Hakenberg,
makes the following
Order
Grounds
1. By application received at the Tribunal Registry on 8 June 2012, CA seeks the annulment of her appraisal reports for the year 2010, annulment of the European Commission decision awarding her two promotion points for that period, a further examination of her appraisal, awarding the necessary points to promote her with retroactive effect from 1 January 2011 and an order that the Commission pay the sum of EUR 20 000.
Background to the dispute
2. The applicant was an official in grade AST 1 with the Commission from 1 December 2006 to 31 January 2011. On 18 November 2010, she was transferred to another unit of the Commission. On 1 February 2011, she was transferred to the European Parliament.
3. In the context of the appraisal and promotion exercise relating to 2010, the applicant obtained four promotion points, thereby raising her total to 16 points. The promotion threshold for her grade was fixed at 18 points.
4. On 24 May 2011, the applicant contested the award of the promotion points, relying on the assessments made by the heads of the two units in which she had performed her duties. Following that objection, the Central Joint Working Group unanimously issued a draft opinion, recommending that the number of promotion points be increased to five. Having examined the file and comparative merits within the grade, the Joint Appraisal and Promotion Committee also recommended changing the number of promotion points. The Appointing Authority upheld that opinion and the number of promotion points was raised to five.
5. The applicant lodged a complaint dated 25 November 2011 and registered by the Commission on 29 November 2011, contesting her non-promotion and the number of promotion points awarded.
6. The complaint was rejected by decision of 12 March 2012.
Forms of order sought by the parties
7. The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:
– annul her appraisal reports for the period from 1 January to 31 December 2010 and the Commission decision awarding her two promotion points for the same period;
– order the Commission to undertake a further examination of her appraisal report, awarding the necessary points to promote her to AST 2 with retroactive effect from 1 January 2011;
– order the Commission to pay a sum estimated, ex aequo et bono, including costs, at EUR 20 000.00.
8. The Commission contends that the Tribunal should:
– dismiss the action;
– order the applicant to pay the costs.
Law
9. Under Article 76 of the Rules of Procedure, where an action is, in whole or in part, manifestly inadmissible or manifestly lacking any foundation in law, the Tribunal may, by reasoned order, give a decision on the action without taking further steps in the proceedings.
10. In the present case, the Tribunal considers that the information in the file is sufficient to enable it to rule on the admissibility of the action, and decides, pursuant to Article 76 of the Rules of Procedure, to give a decision without taking further steps in the proceedings.
11. It must be recalled that, pursuant to Article 35(1)(e) of the Rules of Procedure, an application must contain the pleas in law and the factual and legal arguments on which it is based. According to settled case-law, those pleas in law and arguments must be sufficiently clear and precise to enable the defendant to prepare his defence and the Tribunal to rule on the action, if necessary without any other supporting information. In order to ensure legal certainty and the proper administration of justice, it is necessary, if an action is to be admissible, that the essential points of law and fact relied on be indicated coherently and intelligibly in the application itself (order of 28 April 1993 in Case T‑85/92 De Hoe
v Commission, paragraph 20; judgments of 15 September 2011 in Case F‑102/09 Bennett and Others
v OHIM, paragraph 115; of 1 February 2012 in Case F‑123/10 Bancale and Buccheri
v Commission, paragraph 38; and of 8 March 2012 in Case F‑12/10 Kerstens
v Commission, paragraph 68). That is a fortiori
the case since, under Article 7(3) of Annex I to the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, the written stage of the proceedings before the Tribunal comprises, in principle, only one exchange of written pleadings, unless the Tribunal decides otherwise. That particular feature of the procedure before the Tribunal explains why, in contrast to the provisions in respect of cases before the Court of Justice of the European Union or the General Court, in accordance with the first paragraph of Article 21 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, the pleas in law and the arguments in the application may not be in summary form (judgment of 4 June 2009 in Joined Cases F‑134/07 and F‑8/08 Adjemian and Others
v Commission, paragraph 76).
12. In the present case, it should be noted that, in the application, Part V, entitled ‘Law’ reads as follows:
‘First plea in law, alleging …
8 As shown by the above statements, the decision to [award] 5 points to the [applicant] is vitiated by a blatant error of assessment, easily recognisable.
Second plea in law, alleging …
9 Inter-institutional mobility is allowed and even promoted by the [European Union] institutions. It is unfair and against the principle of equal treatment that [a European Union] official is penalised as the [applicant] was.’
13. It must be held that the application does not satisfy the requirements of Article 35(1)(e) of the Rules of Procedure.
14. First of all, although it is possible to interpret the pleas as alleging, respectively, a manifest error of assessment and an infringement of the principle of equal treatment, paragraph 8 of the application refers only to the statement of facts, and paragraph 9 confines itself to mentioning the existence of a ‘penalisation’ of the applicant. Secondly, the application gives no indication of the provisions allegedly infringed by the Commission.
15. Furthermore, the Commission also expressed serious doubts regarding the admissibility of the action having regard to Article 35 of the Rules of Procedure.
16. Finally, the applicant provides no details of any basis for the claim for compensation estimated at EUR 20 000. She does not indicate what administrative fault the Commission committed, shows no causal link between the alleged fault and the alleged damage and provides no indication of the existence, extent or nature of the damage incurred.
17. Accordingly, the pleas in law and forms of order sought, as they have been presented by the applicant, do not comply with the provisions of Article 35(1)(e) of the Rules of Procedure. Consequently, the action must be rejected as clearly inadmissible.
Costs
18. Under Article 87(1) of the Rules of Procedure, without prejudice to the other provisions of Chapter 8 of Title 2 of those rules, the unsuccessful party is to be ordered to pay the costs if they have been applied for in the successful party’s pleadings. Under Article 87(2), the Tribunal may, if equity so requires, decide that an unsuccessful party is to pay only part of the costs or even that he or she is not to be ordered to pay any.
19. It follows from the grounds set out in the present order that the applicant is the unsuccessful party. Furthermore, in its pleadings the Commission has expressly requested that the applicant be ordered to pay the costs. Since the circumstances of the present case do not warrant application of Article 87(2) of the Rules of Procedure, the applicant must bear her own costs and be ordered to pay the costs incurred by the Commission.
Operative part
On those grounds,
THE CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL
(First Chamber)
hereby orders:
1. The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.
2. CA is to bear her own costs and pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.
Luxembourg, 7 November 2013.