JUDGMENT OF THE CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL
(First Chamber)
28 April 2009
Case F-115/07
Marie-Thérèse Balieu-Steinmetz and Lidia Noworyta
v
European Parliament
(Civil service – Officials – Remuneration – Fixed allowance for overtime – Article 3 of Annex VI to the Staff Regulations – Article 56 of the Staff Regulations – Internal rules on the fixed allowance for overtime – Internal rules on compensation for overtime – Equal treatment)
Application: brought under Articles 236 EC and 152 EA, in which Ms Balieu-Steinmetz and Ms Noworyta seek, first, a declaration that the
first article of the internal rules concerning the fixed allowance for overtime adopted by the Parliament’s Secretary-General
pursuant to Article 3 of Annex VI to the Staff Regulations is illegal, and second, annulment of the Parliament’s implied decision
of 13 November 2006 rejecting Ms Balieu-Steinmetz’s request of 13 July 2006, and the Parliament’s decision of 18 December
2006 rejecting Ms Noworyta’s request of 5 July 2006, both requests seeking payment of the abovementioned fixed allowance.
Held: The Parliament’s implied decision of 13 November 2006 rejecting Ms Balieu-Steinmetz’s request of 13 July 2006, and the Parliament’s
decision of 18 December 2006 rejecting Ms Noworyta’s request of 5 July 2006 are annulled. The Parliament is to bear all the
costs.
Summary
1.      Officials – Actions – Action against a measure of general application
(Art. 236 EC; Staff Regulations, Art. 90)
2.      Officials – Equal treatment – Limits – Advantage unlawfully granted – Refusal to grant a fixed allowance to an official despite
that allowance being paid to other officials in a comparable situation
1.      The Civil Service Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to adjudicate on claims directly seeking a declaration that a measure
of general application, such as a provision of the Staff Regulations, is illegal.
(see para. 20)
2.      An institution’s decision refusing to grant a fixed allowance to an official even though other officials in a comparable situation
receive it, a decision which is based on the unlawful nature of the payment of that allowance to the latter officials, infringes
the principle of equal treatment where the institution cannot satisfactorily prove that the payment of the allowance to those
officials has no legal basis, since measures adopted by the Community institutions are presumed to be lawful.
(see paras 28-30, 32, 36, 42)
See:
188/83 Witte v Parliament [1984] ECR 3465, paras 13 to 15
T-30/90 Zoder v Parliament [1991] ECR II‑207, para. 26; T-272/94 Brulant v Parliament [1996] ECR-SC I‑A‑513 and II‑1397, para. 35; T-22/99 Rose v Commission [2000] ECR-SC I‑A‑27 and II‑115, para. 39; T-157/99 Griesel v Council [2000] ECR-SC I‑A‑151 and II‑699, para. 25; judgment of 8 July 2003 in T-65/02 Chetaud v Parliament, not published in the ECR, para. 44; T-120/04 Peróxidos Orgánicos v Commission [2006] ECR II‑4441, para. 77; T-379/04 J v Commission [2006] ECR-SC I‑A‑2‑313 and II‑A‑2‑1575, para. 79
F-4/07 Skoulidi v Commission [2008] ECR-SC I‑A‑1‑0000 and II‑A‑1‑0000, para. 81