ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
52

It follows that the decision of the AACC determining the list of members of the temporary staff to be reclassified constitutes a final decision in so far as it identifies the members of the temporary staff to be reclassified during the reclassification exercise in question. Therefore, it is on publication of that list that the members of the temporary staff who consider themselves eligible for reclassification learn, in a manner which is final and not open to doubt, of the assessment of their respective merits and are able to tell whether their legal position is affected. Consequently, such a decision constitutes, in principle, an act adversely affecting an official, against which an action may be brought by a member of the temporary staff who feels himself to have been prejudiced by that act in so far as he was not reclassified (judgments of 21 November 1996 in Case T‑144/95 Michaël v Commission, paragraphs 30 and 31, and of 28 September 2004 in Case T‑216/03 Tenreiro v Commission, paragraphs 47 and 48).
ORDER OF THE EUROPEAN UNION CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL

(First Chamber)

9 September 2014

Rainer Moriarty

v

European Parliament

‛Civil service — Promotion — 2012 promotion procedure — Non-inclusion in the list of promoted officials — Application manifestly lacking any legal basis’

Application:

under Article 270 TFEU, applicable to the EAEC Treaty pursuant to Article 106a thereof, in which Mr Moriarty seeks annulment of the decision of the European Parliament not to promote him in the 2012 promotion procedure and of the decision to promote another official.

Held:

Mr Moriarty’s action is dismissed as manifestly lacking any legal basis. Mr Moriarty is to bear his own costs and is ordered to pay the costs incurred by the European Parliament.

Summary

Officials — Promotion — Consideration of comparative merits — Administration’s discretion — Factors which may be taken into consideration — Attainment of reference threshold in the previous promotion procedure — Significance

(Staff Regulations, Art. 45)

Although the administration possesses, for the purpose of considering the comparative merits of officials who are candidates for promotion, a wide discretion, that does not exempt the administration from its obligation to examine carefully and impartially all the relevant factors in a particular case. In particular, the fact that an official had already reached the reference threshold in the previous promotion procedure constitutes a relevant merit factor, provided that the official has not lost merit since the promotion procedure in which he was proposed for promotion. However, the administration cannot promote an official solely on the ground that he has reached the reference threshold.

Moreover, the award of a third merit point, indicating exceptional merits in a given year, may be an important factor in the subsequent comparative assessment of the merits of officials in the same grade with a view to their promotion.

(see paras 24, 31, 33)

See:

judgment in Casini v Commission, T‑132/03, EU:T:2005:324, para. 69

judgments in Berrisford v Commission, F‑107/06, EU:F:2007:172, para 72 et seq.; Hau v Parliament, F‑125/07, EU:F:2009:131, para. 27; Barbin v Parliament, F‑68/09, EU:F:2011:11, para. 83; and Mantzouratos v Parliament, F‑64/10, EU:F:2011:72, para. 66
ORDER OF THE EUROPEAN UNION CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL

(First Chamber)

25 March 2015

Simplice Gervais Singou

v

Council of the European Union

‛Civil service — Contract staff — Rejection of a complaint of psychological harassment — Non-renewal of contract — No administrative complaint — Manifest inadmissibility’

Application:

under Article 270 TFEU, applicable to the EAEC Treaty pursuant to Article 106a thereof, in which Mr Singou seeks, in essence, first, annulment of the decisions of the Council of the European Union to reject his complaint of psychological harassment and not to renew his fixed-term contract as a member of the contract staff, and, second, an order that the Council compensate him for the damage which he considers he has suffered.

Held:

The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible. The application for legal aid is rejected. Mr Singou is to bear his own costs.

Summary

Actions brought by officials — Prior administrative complaint — None — Inadmissibility

(Staff Regulations, Arts 90(2) and 91(2); Conditions of Employment of Other Servants, Art. 117)

Articles 90 and 91 of the Staff Regulations, applicable by analogy to members of the contract staff pursuant to Article 117 of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants, make the admissibility of an action brought by an official or former official against the institution to which he belongs or belonged conditional on the proper observance of the preliminary administrative procedure.

In particular, under Article 91(2) of the Staff Regulations, appeals against an act adversely affecting an official lie only if the appointing authority has previously had a complaint submitted to it pursuant to Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations within the required time limit, and if that complaint has been rejected expressly or by implication.

(see paras 10, 11)
ORDER OF THE EUROPEAN UNION CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL

(Second Chamber)

20 July 2016

Wanda Gaj

v

European Commission

‛Civil service — Officials — Pensions — Transfer of national pension rights — Proposal concerning additional pensionable years — Act not having an adverse effect — Application for a decision not going to the substance of the case — Article 83 of the Rules of Procedure — Action in part inadmissible and in part manifestly lacking any foundation in law — Article 81 of the Rules of Procedure’

Application:

under Article 270 TFEU, applicable to the EAEC Treaty pursuant to Article 106a thereof, by which Ms Wanda Gaj seeks, principally, the annulment, first, of the European Commission’s decision of 19 August 2013 to close the file relating to the transfer of pension rights which she had acquired under a French pension scheme before entering the service of the Commission and, secondly, of the Commission’s proposal of 18 September 2013 determining, at her request, the number of additional pensionable years to be credited under the EU pension scheme as a result of the transfer of those pension rights.

Held:

The action is dismissed as in part inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded. Ms Wanda Gaj shall bear her own costs and is ordered to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.

Summary

Actions brought by officials — Acts adversely affecting an official — Meaning — Proposal concerning additional pensionable years with a view to a transfer to the EU pension scheme of pension rights acquired before entry into the service of the EU — Not included

(Staff Regulations, Art. 91(1), and Annex VIII, Art. 11(2))

A proposal concerning additional pensionable years, sent to an official with a view to the transfer to the EU pension scheme of pension rights acquired under another scheme, does not produce binding legal effects which directly and immediately affect the legal situation of the person to whom it is addressed, by significantly altering that situation, and cannot be characterised as an act having adverse effect within the meaning of Article 91(1) of the Staff Regulations.

(see para. 23)

See:

Judgments of 13 October 2015 in Commission v Verile and Gjergji, T‑104/14 P, EU:T:2015:776, para. 73; in Commission v Cocchi and Falcione, T‑103/13 P, EU:T:2015:777, para. 65; and Teughels v Commission, T‑131/14 P, EU:T:2015:778, para. 69
ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE SECOND CHAMBER

OF THE EUROPEAN UNION CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL

11 November 2015

HA

v

European Commission

‛Amicable settlement of the dispute — Article 90(1) of the Rules of Procedure — Agreement between the parties on the initiative of the Tribunal — Removal from the register’

Application

:

under Article 270 TFEU, applicable to the EAEC Treaty pursuant to Article 106a thereof, in which the applicant seeks, first, annulment of the decision of the European Commission to withdraw his entitlement to the expatriation allowance retrospectively from 1 July 2009 and to recover amounts paid by way of that allowance. Secondly, the applicant seeks compensation for the material and non-material harm he claims to have incurred.

Held

:

Case F‑55/15, HA v Commission, is removed from the register of the Tribunal. The parties are to bear their own costs in accordance with the terms of the agreement concluded between them.

Summary

Actions brought by officials — Amicable settlement of the dispute before the Civil Service Tribunal — Removal from the register

(Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal, Art. 91(1))

(see para. 6)
ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE THIRD CHAMBER OF THE EUROPEAN UNION CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL

11 July 2016

FF

v

European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA)

‛Amicable settlement of the dispute — Article 91(1) of the Rules of Procedure — Agreement between the parties on the initiative of the Tribunal — Removal from the register’

Application:

under Article 270 TFEU, applicable to the EAEC Treaty pursuant to Article 106a thereof, by which FF seeks annulment of the decision of the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) terminating his fixed-term employment contract before the date fixed in that contract and compensation for the material and non-material damage he claims to have suffered.

Held:

Case F‑6/15 is removed from the register of the Tribunal following the agreement reached between FF and the European Aviation Safety Agency. FF and the European Aviation Safety Agency shall bear the costs in accordance with the terms of their agreement.

Summary

Actions brought by officials — Amicable settlement of the dispute before the Civil Service Tribunal — Removal from the register

(Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal, Art. 91)

(see para. 3)
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 178/43

Action brought on 16 June 2006 — Kyriazi v Commission

(Case F-66/06)

(2006/C 178/80)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Kalliopi Kyriazi (Clabecq, Belgium) (represented by: E. Boigelot, lawyer)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

— Annul the decision of 12 September 2005 to appoint the applicant as a probationary official with classification in Grade C*1, step 2, and all consecutive and/or related measures such as the decision to cancel her secretarial allowance and not to restore it following her appointment as an established official;

— Annul the Appointing Authority's decision of 6 March 2006 rejecting the applicant's complaint seeking annulment of the above decision;

— Order the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant, a successful candidate in the internal competition for change of category COM/PC/04, was a member of the Commission's temporary staff in Grade C*2 (former grade C5) at the time of her inclusion on the list of suitable candidates of that competition and until 31 July 2004. Subsequently, she worked as a temporary employee at the same institution until 1 November 2004, the date on which she was again recruited as a member of the temporary staff and classified in Grade C*1, without the benefit of the secretarial allowance which she had received under the previous contract. On 16 April 2005, she was appointed as a probationary official, with that same classification.

In support of her action, the applicant claims that the administration has infringed Article 31(1) and the second paragraph of Article 25 of the Staff Regulations and Articles 5 and 18 of Annex XIII thereto. She also alleges infringement of essential procedural requirements and the provisions of the competition notice and disregard of a number of general principles of law, in particular the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations, the principle of legal certainty, the principle of sound administration and the principle of equal treatment.

The applicant considers further that Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 723/2004 of 22 March 2004 amending the Staff Regulations of officials of the European Communities and the Conditions of Employment of other servants of the European Communities (1) is unlawful as to the part which inserts Article 5(4) of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations, in so far as the Appointing Authority construes that provision as allowing it to classify the applicant in Grade C*1, step 2, in breach of the requirements laid down by Article 31 of the Staff Regulations and a number of principles of law.

(1) OJ L 124, 27.4.2004, p. 1.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 69/31

Action brought on 5 February 2007 — Angé Serrano v Parliament

(Case F-9/07)

(2007/C 69/62)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Pilar Angé Serrano (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: E. Boigelot, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

— Annul the decision of the European Parliament of 20 March 2006 to reclassify the applicant in Grade B*6, step 8, with effect from 1 May 2004;

— order the defendant to pay, by way of compensation for material and non-material damage and harm to the applicant's career, the sum of EUR 25 000, subject to increase and/or decrease in the course of the proceedings;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant, an official of the European Parliament and successful candidate in a competition for change of category (from Category C to Category B) before the reformed Staff Regulations entered into force on 1 May 2004, has already brought an action before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities against the decision to reclassify her in Grade B*5 (1).

In the present case, the applicant challenges the Parliament's decision of 20 March 2006 to reclassify her in Grade B*6, step 8. In support of her claim, the applicant relies on pleas in law which are very similar to those put forward in Case T-47/05. Moreover, she submits that, despite her new classification, the system arising from the reform of the Staff Regulations calls into question the effectiveness of her change of category from C to B, since the new classification does not confer any benefit on the applicant when her situation is compared with that of her colleagues who have not been successful in a competition for change of category.

(1) Case T-47/05 Angé Serrano and Others v Parliament, OJ C 93, 14.4.2005, p. 36.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 8/32

Action brought on 31 October 2007 — Menidiatis v Commission

(Case F-128/07)

(2008/C 8/56)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Andreas Menidiatis (Sint-Genesius-Rode, Belgium) (represented by: S. Pappas, lawyer)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

— annul the Commission decision of 21 December 2006 rejecting the applicant's candidature for the vacant post of head of representation of the Commission to Greece and appointing another candidate to that post;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of his action, the applicant relies on a number of pleas in law against the decision to reject his candidature for the vacant post of head of representation of the Commission to Greece. First, he pleads that the selection procedure was unlawful and not complied with. Secondly, he pleads that the notice of vacancy was unlawful and not complied with.

A further plea in law alleges infringement of Article 11a of the Staff Regulations. Moreover, the applicant pleads the unlawfulness of the downgrading of the post of head of representation in Athens and the unlawfulness of the decision of 7 July 2004 concerning the detailed rules for filling head-of-representation posts.

In addition, the lateness of the publication of the notice of vacancy is relied on along with the failure to state reasons for refusing access to the documents requested by the applicant in his complaint. Finally, the applicant relies on the breach of the rules concerning the rotation of staff occupying ‘sensitive posts’ and submits that there are numerous factors indicating a misuse of powers.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 117/35

Action brought on 19 March 2007 — M v EMEA

(Case F-23/07)

(2007/C 117/55)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: M (Broxbourne, United Kingdom) (represented by S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and E. Marchal, lawyers)

Defendant: European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products (EMEA)

Form of order sought

— Annul the decision of 25 October 2006 by which the Executive Director of the EMEA refused the applicant's request for referral to the Invalidity Committee;

— Order the EMEA to pay to the applicant the sum of EUR 100 000 by way of damages for breach of administrative duty;

— Order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

On 17 March 2005, the applicant, a member of temporary staff with the EMEA, suffered an accident at work, as a result of which it is alleged that he became incapable of doing his job. On 14 February 2006, he was informed that his contract would not be renewed beyond 15 October 2006. His request for referral to the Invalidity Committee was rejected.

In support of his action, the applicant relies in particular on the breach of the first paragraph of Article 31 and the first paragraph of Article 33 of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants (CEOS), as interpreted by the Civil Service Tribunal in its judgment of 16 January 2007 in Case F-119/05 Gesner v OHIM (not yet published in the ECR).
—

declare the claim for recruitment at a higher grade and for payment of the resulting difference in salary as at the date of establishment of the report recognising the applicant's entitlement to recruitment at grade 16 to be well founded
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 64/66

Action brought on 3 December 2007 — Adjemian and Others v Commission

(Case F-134/07)

(2008/C 64/109)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Vahan Adjemian (Angera, Italy) and Others (represented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and E. Marchal, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

The subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the decisions of the Commission, first, refusing to renew the engagement of the applicants as contract staff for a fixed or indefinite period and, second, laying down conditions of employment. In support of their action, the applicants rely on infringement of the principle of stability of employment relations and in particular the unlawfulness of Article 88 of the Conditions of Employment of other servants of the European Communities (‘Conditions of Employment’) in so far as it limits the duration of the contracts of contract staff.

Form of order sought

— Annul the successive decisions of the Commission and in particular that of 28 April 2004 concerning the maximum duration of the recourse to non-permanent staff in its services;

— Declare Article 88 of the Conditions of Employment unlawful in so far as it limits the duration of the contracts for contract staff;

— Annul the decisions of the Commission of 23 August and 31 October 2007 rejecting complaints R/263/07, R/492/07 and R/390/07 brought against the decisions of the Commission to conclude contracts with or to renew the engagement of the applicants as contract staff only for a fixed period;

— Annul the decision of the Commission of 5 September 2007 rejecting the applications of the applicants of 31 May and 20 July 2007 seeking the extension for an indefinite period of the applicants' contracts as members of the contract staff;

— Annul the decisions of the Commission which lay down the respective conditions of the employment of the applicants in so far as their engagement or the extension thereof is limited to a fixed period;
—

state to the appointing authority the consequences of the annulment of the contested decisions and, in particular, reconsider the applicant's right to death allowance, a death grant and an orphan pension (calculated on the basis of the pension for a first orphan);
—

Order the defendant to place the applicant in financial position in which he would have been if he had been correctly classified;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 158/26

Action brought on 25 February 2008 — Tomas v Parliament

(Case F-31/08)

(2008/C 158/46)

Language of the case: Lithuanian

Parties

Applicant: Stanislovas Tomas (Pavlodar, Kazakhstan) (represented by: M. Michalauskas, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

The subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the decision of the Appointing Authority to dismiss the applicant and compensation for the material and non-material harm suffered.

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

— annul the Appointing Authority's decision to dismiss the applicant;

— order the defendant to pay the applicant the sum of EUR 125 000 by way of compensation for the material and non-material harm suffered;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 116/34

Action brought on 22 February 2008 — Wilms v Commission

(Case F-24/08)

(2008/C 116/65)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Günter Wilms (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: M. van der Woude, lawyer)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

The subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the decision of 17 April 2007 in so far as it awards the applicant no additional priority points in the 2003 Promotion procedure, making a total of 1 priority point and a grand total of 19 points, and an order that the defendant pay compensation.

Form of order sought

— Annul the decision of 17 April 2007 in so far as it awards the applicant no additional priority points in the 2003 Promotion procedure, making a total of 1 priority point and a grand total of 19 points;

— order the defendant to pay compensation of at least EUR 5 000;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 209/74

Action brought on 9 June 2008 — De Britto Patricio-Dias v Commission

(Case F-56/08)

(2008/C 209/136)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Jorge De Britto Patricio-Dias (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: L. Massaux, lawyer)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the appointing authority's decision to reject the applicant's request that his children be entitled to primary insurance cover.

Form of order sought

— Annul the appointing authority's decision No R/559/07 of 10 March 2008;

— Rule that his children are entitled to primary insurance cover;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 171/52

Action brought on 30 April 2008 — Buschak v European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions

(Case F-47/08)

(2008/C 171/104)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Willy Buschak (Bonn, Germany) (represented by: L. Lévi and C. Ronzi, lawyers)

Defendant: European Foundation for the improvement of living and working conditions

The subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Application for annulment of the decision amending the applicant's job description and an order that the defendant pay him a sum by way of compensation for the material and non-material harm suffered.

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

— annul the decision delivered by the director of the European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions to the applicant on 4 July 2007, amending his job description;

— so far as necessary, annul the decision of 29 or 30 January 2008 rejecting the applicant's complaint;

— order the European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions to pay EUR 50 000 by way of compensation for the harm suffered;