EN
ReportsofCases
ECLI:EU:F:2010 :11 1JUDGMENT O F THE CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL (T hird Ch amber)
24 February 2010
Case F-89/08
P
v
European Parliament
(Civil service — Temp orary staff — European Parliament — Dismissal — Loss of confidence)
Application:brought under Articles 236 E C and 152 E A, in which the applicant seeks, first, annulment 
of the Parliament’s decision o f 15 April 2008 t erminating her contract as a mem ber of the 
temp orary staff, second, her reinstatement with retroactive e ffect, th ird, payment of her 
salary from 15 July 2008 , fourth, p ayment of compe nsation for the non -material damage 
and harm to her career which she considers she has suffered as a r esult of the decision 
to dismiss her, and fifth, a n order that the Parliament pay the costs.
Held: The action is dismissed. Each party is to bear its own costs.
Summ ary
1. Officials — Members of the temporary staff — Temporary staff under Article 2(c) of the Conditions of 
Employment of Other Servants — Member of the temporary staff seconded t o a p olitical group in the 
Parliament
(Conditions of Employment of Other Servants, Art. 2(c))
2. Officials — Members of the temporary staff — Temporary staff under Article 2(c) of the Conditions of 
Employment of Other Servants — Member of the temporary staff seconded t o a p olitical group in the 
Parliament
(Conditions of Employment of Other Servants, Art. 2(c))
3. Officials — Members of the temporary staff — Decision to dismiss — Obligation to state the reasons 
on wh ich the decision is based — Scope
(Staff Regulations, Arts 25, second para., a nd 90(2); Conditions of Employment of Other Servants, 
Art. 2(c))
4. Actions for annulment — Pleas in law — Misuse of powers — Definition
5. Officials — Administration’s duty to have regard for the interests of officials — Scope — Limits
(Conditions of Employment of Other Servants, Art. 2(c))
6. Officials — Actions — Subject-matter — Direction to the administration — Inadmissibility
(Art. 233 EC; Staff Regulations, Art. 91)
2 ECLI:EU:F:2010 :11SUMM ARY—CASEF-89/08
PvPARLIAMENT
1. Observance of the rights of the defence is, in all procedures initiated against a pe rson w hich ar e 
liable to culminate in a me asure ad versely affecting th at pe rson, a f undamental principle of 
Community law w hich must be guaranteed eve n in th e absence of any rules governing the procedure 
in question. In accordance with th at principle, the pe rson c oncerned m ust have b een afforded th e 
opportunity, prior to the ad option o f the decision c oncerning him, properly to make kno wn his views 
on th e truth and relevance of the facts and circumstances on w hich that decision w as based.
However, a p lea in law alleging infringement of the rights of the defence cannot reasonably be relied 
on in respect of a d ecision e nding the secondment of an official to a p olitical group in the Parliament. 
In th e light o f the specific nature of the duties carried out within a p olitical group and th e need to 
maintain, in such a p olitical environment, relations of mutual confidence between th e officials on 
secondment and th e group, the obligation t o hear th e views of the pe rson c oncerned before ad opting 
the decision terminating those duties is no t mandatory in such a c ase.
That exception a pplies whenever the need to maintain a ‘relationship of trust’ is at issue, that is to say, 
for all temp orary staff recruited under Article 2(c) of the Conditions of Employment of Other 
Servants — m utual confidence being a f undamental element of the contracts of the temp orary staff 
referred to in th at provision — w here their contracts are terminated because of a b reakdown in th e 
relationship of trust. The ad option o f a d ecision t erminating, on th e ground of a b reakdown in th e 
relationship of trust, a c ontract concluded on th e basis of Article 2(c) of th e C onditions of 
Employment of Other Servants does no t therefore require that views of the person c oncerned be heard 
first.
(see paras 29-33)
See:
44/69 B uchler v C omm ission [1970 ] ECR 733, para. 9; 234/84 B elgium v C omm ission [1986 ] ECR 2263 , para. 27; 
C-458/98 P Industrie des p oudres s phériques v C ouncil [2000 ] ECR I-8147 , para. 99; C-288/96 G ermany v 
Comm ission [2000 ] ECR I-8237 , para. 99; C-111/02 P P arliament v R eynolds [2004 ] ECR I-5475 , paras 50 t o 60; 
C-344/05 P Comm ission v D e Bry [2006 ] ECR I-10915 , para. 37
T-45/90 S peybrouck v P arliament [1992 ] ECR II-33, para. 94; T-406/04 B onnet v C ourt of Justice [2006 ] 
ECR-SC I-A-2-213 a nd II-A-2-1097 , para. 79
2. Under the terms of the provisions of Article 4 of the decision o f the Parliament Bureau of 3 May 
2004 c oncerning th e devolution o f th e powers of th e appointing authority and th e authority 
emp owered to conclude contracts of emp loyment, as amended by the Bureau’s decision o f 26 October 
2004 , in th e case of non -attached M embers the Secretary-General of the Parliament pe rforms the 
duties of the authority emp owered to conclude contracts of emp loyment for temp orary staff referred 
to in Article 2(c) of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants who are recruited to work for 
those M embers. Consequently, it is the Secretary-General of the Parliament who is compe tent to 
adopt a d ecision t o di smiss a mem ber of the temp orary staff w orking for non -attached M embers. 
However, the political groups have di scretion t o choose th e staff th ey wish to engage to serve 
temp orarily in posts in those groups as well as to terminate the latter’s engagement.
For non -attached M embers, that is to say, Members who have no t been able to form a p olitical group, 
there is an ad ministrator, the ‘non-attached M embers’ coordinator’, whose job it is to liaise between 
the non -attached M embers as well as between th em a nd the other political groups or the Parliament’s 
administrative d epartments. The coordinator also m anages th e shared resources available to 
non-attached M embers and m ust therefore ensure th at the Conditions of Employment of Other 
Servants are applied to temp orary staff assigned to those Members.
ECLI:EU:F:2010 :11 3SUMM ARY—CASEF-89/08
PvPARLIAMENT
The temp orary staff concerned m ainly w ork for a s ingle M ember, who is th eir line-manager. 
In particular, he is the on e who signs their travel orders. Consequently, although, in practice, the 
day-to-day ad ministrative o peration o f the non -attached M embers’ ‘group’ requires a mem ber of the 
temp orary staff to pe rform tasks w hich concern non -attached M embers other than his line-manager 
alone, it is the latter with w hom h e must have a r elationship of trust. Wh ere a b reakdown occurs in 
the relationship of trust between a s taff mem ber and his line-manager, the non -attached M embers’ 
coordinator submits a di smissal request to th e Secretary-General of the Parliament and, on th e basis 
of that request, th e Secretary-General of the Parliament adopts a di smissal decision. In so far as it is 
based on a l oss of confidence on th e part of the staff mem ber’s line-manager, that decision c annot be 
annulled solely on th e ground that the loss of confidence concerns on ly on e non -attached M ember.
(see paras 39-43, 45-46)
See:
Parliament v R eynolds, para. 50
3. There is no o verridi ng reason t o exclude mem bers of the temp orary staff from p rotection a gainst 
unjustified dismissal, particularly when their contract is for an indefinite pe riod or, if it is a f ixed-term 
contract, th ey are dismissed before the expiry of the term. In order to ensure a s ufficient degree o f 
protection t o th at effect, th e pe rsons concerned m ust be able to determine whether their legitimate 
interests have b een respected or da maged and to assess w hether it would be appropriate to initiate 
judicial proceedings, and th e courts must be able to exercise their powers of review, which amounts 
to recognising an obligation on th e part of the compe tent authority to state th e reasons for its 
decisions.
Where a d ecision to dismiss is taken on th e ground of a loss of confidence, the pe rson c oncerned has 
no p rocedural safeguards, such as th e right t o be heard d uring th e ad ministrative p rocedure. 
Consequently, the obligation to state the reasons for the decision a nd the ad ministration’s compliance 
with th at obligation c onstitute th e sole safeguard e nabling him, at the ve ry least after the decision 
adversely affecting him is ad opted, to m ake e ffective u se of the remedies available to challenge th e 
legality of the decision.
However, a b reakdown in th e relationship of trust, in other words in a r elationship of a pe rsonal 
nature, is no t necessarily based on o bjective f actors. The simple finding th at th ere has been a 
breakdown in th e relationship of trust may therefore be enough to justify the ad option o f a di smissal 
decision. Consequently, where a di smissal decision is based on ly on s uch a f inding, the requirement 
that the grounds for the decision m ust describe in detail the factual circumstances demonstrating or 
justifying the breakdown in the relationship of trust cannot be too far-reaching.
Nevertheless, particularly as regards temp orary staff seconded to non -attached M embers in th e 
Parliament, th e statement of reasons for a di smissal decision b ased on a l oss o f confidence m ust 
necessarily provide ad equate details of the pe rson w ith w hom th e relationship of trust has been 
broken. The staff mem ber in question w ill then be able to satisfy himself that the decision c oncerns his 
line-manager, that is to say, the non -attached M ember with w hom h e should have a r elationship of 
trust.
Where a d ecision d oes no t contain an ad equate statement of reasons, it is no t the temp orary staff 
mem ber’s responsibility to find out for himself what the grounds for the decision w ere. Wh ere the 
statement of reasons for a d ecision is inadequate, therefore, the ad ministration c annot rely on th e fact 
that the grounds for that decision w ere accessible in th e pe rsonal file of the staff mem ber in question 
in order to pe rsuade the court, at the stage of the judicial proceedings, to dismiss a p lea based on th e 
inadequacy of that statement of reasons. However, where it is clear from th e ve ry wording of the 
complaint lodged by th e staff mem ber under Article 90(2) of the Staff R egulations th at he was
4 ECLI:EU:F:2010 :11SUMM ARY—CASEF-89/08
PvPARLIAMENT
 apprised of the grounds for a d ecision b y consulting his pe rsonal file, it would be unreasonable to 
annul that decision b ecause of the, admittedly improper, fact that the institution did no t state them 
explicitly when it rejected that complaint.
(see paras 69-74, 77, 81-83)
See:
T-237/00 R eynolds v P arliament [2005 ] ECR-SC I-A-385 a nd II-1731 , para. 95; T-404/06 P E TF v L andgren [2009 ] 
ECR II-2841
F-1/05 L andgren v E TF [2006 ] ECR-SC I-A-1-123 a nd II-A-1-459, paras 73 a nd 74
4. A me asure may amount to a m isuse of powers on ly if it appears, on th e basis of objective, relevant 
and consistent factors, to have been taken with th e exclusive p urpose, or at any rate the main purpose, 
of achieving an end other than that stated or evading a p rocedure specifically prescribed by the Treaty.
(see para. 87)
See:
8/57 G roupement des h auts fourneaux et aciéries belges v H igh Authority [1958 ] ECR 245, 256; C-342/03 S pain v 
Council [2005 ] ECR I-1975 , para. 64; C-310/04 S pain v C ouncil [2006 ] ECR I-7285 , para. 69
5. The concept of the ad ministration’s duty to have regard f or the welfare of its servants reflects the 
balance of reciprocal rights and obligations established by th e Staff Regulations in th e relationship 
between th e official authority and the civil servants. That balance implies, in particular, that when th e 
relevant authority takes a d ecision c oncerning th e position o f an official, it should take i nto 
consideration a ll th e factors capable of affecting its decision a nd th at when doing so it should take 
into account no t on ly the interests of the service but also th ose of the official concerned. However, 
mutual confidence is a f undamental element of th e contracts of temp orary staff referred to in 
Article 2(c) of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants. Consequently, save in exceptional 
circumstances, any limits on th e action t aken by the ad ministration r esulting from th e duty to have 
regard f or the welfare of its staff cannot, where th ere has been a b reakdown in th e relationship of 
trust, prevent the adoption o f a di smissal decision b ased on th at breakdown.
(see paras 112 -113)
See:
33/79 a nd 75/79 K uhner v C omm ission [1980 ] ECR 1677 , para. 22; C-298/93 P Klinke v C ourt of Justice [1994 ] 
ECR I-3009 , para. 38
Speybrouck v P arliament, para. 94; Bonnet v C ourt of Justice, para. 47
6. In an action b rought u nder Article 91 o f the Staff Regulations, the Community judicature is no t 
entitled to issue dir ections to th e Union institutions. First of all, it manifestly has no j urisdiction t o 
issue dir ections to th ose institutions, and second, where an act is annulled, the institution c oncerned 
is required to take th e me asures necessary to comply with th e judgment.
(see para. 120 )
See:
T-373/00, T-27/01, T-56/01 a nd T-69/01 T ralli v E CB [2002 ] ECR-SC I-A-97 a nd II-453, para. 42 a nd th e case-law 
cited therein