ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
ORDER OF THE CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL (First Chamber)

12 July 2007

Case F-143/06

Donato Continolo

v

Commission of the European Communities

(Civil service – Officials – Pensions – Transfer of pension rights – Manifest inadmissibility)

Application: brought under Articles 236 EC and 152 EA, in which Mr Continolo seeks annulment of the Commission’s decision of 3 January 2006 on the award and calculation of his pension rights, in so far as, for the period he spent on leave on personal grounds from 11 June 1981 to 1 March 1983, it takes into account, for the calculation of those rights, only one year, five months and six days instead of one year, eight months and twenty days, as well as annulment of the appointing authority’s decision of 5 September 2006 rejecting his complaint against the abovementioned decision of 3 January 2006.

Held: The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible. The parties are to bear their own costs.

Summary

Officials – Actions – Prior administrative complaint – Same subject-matter and legal basis

(Staff Regulations, Arts 90 and 91)

Under Article 91(2) of the Staff Regulations, an appeal is admissible only if the appointing authority has previously had a complaint submitted to it pursuant to Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations against the act adversely affecting the official concerned within the period of three months provided for in that article.

An appeal by an official against a decision of the administration fixing his pension rights is inadmissible where the prior complaint was lodged against a subsequent decision of the administration rejecting his application to contribute retroactively to the Community pension scheme. The appeal, in so far as it is directed against the first decision, was not preceded by a prior complaint with the same subject-matter and thus does not satisfy the requirement laid down in Article 91(2) of the Staff Regulations. Furthermore, even if the complaint, in so far as it relates to the administration’s calculation of the applicant’s pension rights, may be regarded as also calling into question the legality of the first decision and can therefore be deemed to have been lodged against that decision secondarily, it should have been submitted within the period laid down in the Staff Regulations.

(see paras 18, 22-24)
ORDER OF THE CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL

(First Chamber)

6 December 2007

Case F-40/06

Luigi Marcuccio

v

Commission of the European Communities

(Civil service – Officials – Request for information on personal effects dispatched from the place of employment to the place of residence – No need to adjudicate – Application for damages manifestly unfounded)

Application: brought under Articles 236 EC and 152 EA, in which Mr Marcuccio seeks, first, annulment of the implied decision rejecting his request for a copy of the consignment note relating to the dispatch of his personal effects from Angola to Italy, and, second, damages.

Held: There is no need to adjudicate on the claims for annulment. The claims for compensation are rejected as manifestly unfounded. The applicant is to bear his own costs and all the costs incurred by the Commission.

Summary

1. Procedure – Request complied with after action was brought – Action which has become devoid of purpose – No need to adjudicate

(Staff Regulations, Arts 90 and 91)

2. Officials – Non-contractual liability of the institutions – Conditions – Unlawfulness – Injury – Causal link – Cumulative conditions

1. Since the applicant has, after bringing his action, essentially obtained everything he sought from the institution, his action for annulment of the implied decision rejecting his request has become devoid of purpose and there is no longer any need to give a ruling.

(see para. 26)

2. Non-contractual liability on the part of the Community is subject to a number of conditions relating to the illegality of the conduct alleged against the Community institutions, actual damage and the existence of a causal link between the conduct of the institution and the damage complained of. If any one of those conditions is not satisfied, the entire action must be dismissed and it is unnecessary to consider the other conditions for such liability.

(see para. 44)

See:

T-165/03 Vonier v Commission [2004] ECR-SC I‑A‑343 and II‑1575, para. 78
Staff case summary



Staff case summary

Summary

1. Officials – Actions – Time-limits – Claim for compensation addressed to an institution – Duty to act within a reasonable time

(Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 46; Staff Regulations, Art. 90)

2. Officials – Actions – Action for damages – Subject-matter – Ruling – Manifest inadmissibility

(Staff Regulations, Arts 90 and 91)

1. The onus is on officials or other staff to submit a claim for compensation from the Community for loss alleged to be attributable to the Community within a reasonable period from the time when they became aware of the situation of which they complain. The reasonableness of a period is to be appraised in the light of the circumstances specific to each case and, in particular, the importance of the case for the person concerned, its complexity and the conduct of the parties.

Account must also be taken of the point of reference provided by the limitation period of five years laid down for actions in non-contractual liability by Article 46 of the Statute of the Court of Justice. However, the five year period does not constitute a rigid and intangible limit below which any claim is admissible regardless of the time taken by the applicant to submit his claim to the administration and of the circumstances of the case.

(see paras 27-30)

See:

9/75 Meyer-Burckhardt v Commission [1975] ECR 1171, paras 7, 10 and 11

T-144/02 Eagle and Others v Commission [2004] ECR II‑3381, paras 65, 66 and 71

F-125/05 Tsarnavas v Commission [2007] ECR-SC I‑A‑1‑0000 and II‑A‑1‑0000, paras 71, 76 and 77

2. In an action for compensation brought by an official, claims which seek, in reality, a declaration by the Community judicature that certain arguments put forward in support of the claim for compensation are well founded are manifestly inadmissible because it is not for the court to make statements of law. That is true of claims that the Community judicature should make a declaration establishing the reality of the actions and conduct complained of and declare them unlawful.

(see para. 36)

See:

108/88 Jaenicke Cendoya v Commission [1989] ECR 2711, paras 8 and 9
ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE FIRST CHAMBER OF THE CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL

11 September 2007

Case F-12/07 AJ

Elizabeth O’Connor

v

Commission of the European Communities

(Legal aid)

Application: in which Mrs O’Connor seeks legal aid under Article 94 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance applicable mutatis mutandis to the Civil Service Tribunal by virtue of Article 3(4) of Council Decision 2004/752/EC, Euratom, establishing the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (OJ 2004 L 333, p. 7), pending the entry into force of the latter’s Rules of Procedure.

Held: The application for legal aid is dismissed.

Summary

Procedure – Application for legal aid – Conditions for granting

(Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Arts 94(3) and 96(1); Council Decision 2004/752, Art. 3(4))
ORDER OF THE CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL

(First Chamber)

4 November 2008

Case F-18/07

Luigi Marcuccio

v

Commission of the European Communities

(Civil service – Officials – Claim – Explicit rejection notified after the implicit rejection – Purely confirmatory measure – Complaint made out of time – Manifest inadmissibility)

Application: brought under Articles 236 EC and 152 EA, in which Mr Marcuccio seeks in particular annulment of the Commission’s decision of 25 October 2005 rejecting his claim for recognition that he has a serious illness for the purposes of Article 72 of the Staff Regulations and the Joint Sickness Insurance Scheme of the European Communities.

Held: The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible. The Commission is to bear its own costs and to pay one third of the applicant’s costs.

Summary

1. Officials – Actions – Act adversely affecting an official – Definition – Explicit rejection of a request notified after the implicit rejection decision became definitive – Confirmatory measure

(Staff Regulations, Arts 90 and 91)

2. Procedure – Costs – Set-off – Exceptional grounds

(Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 87(3), first subpara.; Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal, Art. 122)

1. An explicit decision rejecting a request which has been notified to the official concerned after the implicit rejection decision has become definitive merely constitutes a purely confirmatory measure of the latter decision and cannot therefore be regarded as an act having an adverse effect which can be the subject, under Article 91(1) of the Staff Regulations, of an action for annulment.

(see para. 27)

2. Under the first subparagraph of Article 87(3) of the Rules of the Procedure of the Court of First Instance, applicable mutatis mutandis to cases pending before the Civil Service Tribunal prior to the entry into force of its own Rules of Procedure on 1 November 2007, where the circumstances are exceptional, the Civil Service Tribunal may order that the costs be shared.

The fact that, in an appeal that was rejected because the prior complaint was submitted late, the administration did not inform the official concerned that the decision that was the subject of his complaint was merely a purely confirmatory measure whose annulment could not be sought, and that the administration also failed to mention that the complaint might be late, thus infringing its duty to have regard for his welfare by possibly giving the official the mistaken impression that if he intended to bring an action it would be admissible, constitutes an exceptional circumstance justifying a sharing between the institution in question and the official who is the applicant of the costs incurred by the latter for the purposes of the proceedings.

(see paras 35-39)
Staff case summary



Staff case summary

Summary

1. Procedure – Costs – Taxation – Recoverable costs – Definition

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

2. Procedure – Costs – Taxation – Elements to be taken into consideration

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

3. Procedure – Costs – Taxation – Default interest

1. It follows from Article 91(b) of the Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal that recoverable costs are limited, first, to those incurred for the purpose of the proceedings before the Civil Service Tribunal and, second, to those which were necessary for that purpose. Furthermore, it is for the applicant to produce supporting documents such as to prove that the costs which he seeks to have reimbursed have actually been incurred.

(see para. 21)

See:

T-171/00 DEP Spruyt v Commission [2002] ECR-SC I‑A‑225 and II‑1127, para. 22; T-7/98 DEP, T-208/98 DEP and T-109/99 DEP De Nicola v EIB [2004] ECR-SC I‑A‑219 and II‑973, para. 42

F‑100/05 DEP Chatziioannidou v Commission [2007] ECR-SC I‑A‑1‑139 and II‑A‑1‑759, para. 17

2. The Community judicature is not empowered to tax the fees payable by the parties to their own lawyers, but to determine the amount of those fees which may be recovered from the party ordered to pay the costs. When ruling on an application for taxation of costs, it is not obliged to take account of any national scales of lawyers’ fees or any agreement in that regard between the party concerned and his agents or advisers.

In the absence of Community provisions laying down fee scales, the court must make an unfettered assessment of the facts of the case, taking into account the purpose and nature of the proceedings, their significance from the point of view of Community law, the difficulties presented by the case, the amount of work generated by the case for the agents or advisers involved and the financial interest which the parties had in the proceedings. The Community court’s unfettered assessment may lead it to fix the recoverable costs at an amount lower than that which the party required to pay them would have been prepared to pay the other party.

(see paras 22-23)

See:

C-3/06 P Groupe Danone v Commission [2007] ECR I‑1331, paras 61 and 62

Spruyt v Commission , paras 25 and 26; De Nicola v EIB , para. 32; T-47/03 DEP Sison v Council [2009] ECR II‑1483, para. 48

Chatziioannidou v Commission , para. 20

3. The applicant is entitled to default interest on the amount of recoverable costs fixed by the court, from the service of the order fixing the costs to actual payment of those costs.

(see para. 38)
ORDER OF THE CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL

(Second Chamber)

2 July 2009

Case F-98/08

Bart Nijs

v

Court of Auditors of the European Communities

(Civil service – Officials – Promotion – 2008 promotion procedure – Action manifestly unfounded and manifestly inadmissible)

Application: brought under Articles 236 EC and 152 EA, in which Mr Nijs seeks, in particular, annulment of the decision of the Court of Auditors not to promote him in 2008, as shown by the absence of his name from the list of officials promoted in the 2008 procedure, drawn up by the Secretary-General of the Court of Auditors (Staff Note No 32‑2008 of 5 May 2008), and of the acts preparatory to and subsequent to that decision, as well as an order for the Court of Auditors to pay damages.

Held: The action is dismissed as, in part, manifestly inadmissible and, in part, manifestly unfounded. The applicant is ordered to bear all the costs.

Summary

Officials – Actions – Actions for annulment – Claim for damages – Inadmissible without a pre-litigation procedure seeking damages

(Staff Regulations, Arts 90 and 91)

Claims for damages are manifestly inadmissible for non-compliance with the pre-litigation procedure as laid down in Articles 90 and 91 of the Staff Regulations where the official has not first submitted an application for compensation for the alleged harm.

(see para. 27)
ORDER OF THE EUROPEAN UNION CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL

(First Chamber)

25 October 2012

Case F‑50/09 DEP

Livio Missir mamachi di Lusignano

v

European Commission

(Procedure — Taxation of costs — Value added tax)

Application: for taxation of recoverable costs, on the basis of Article 92 of the Rules of Procedure, which Mr Missir Mamachi di Lusignano brought before the Tribunal in Case F‑50/09 Missir Mamachi di Lusignano v Commission, under Article 92(1) of the Rules of Procedure.

Held: The amount of costs recoverable by the applicant from the Commission in respect of Case F‑50/09 is EUR 44 259.25.

Summary

1. Judicial proceedings — Costs — Taxation — Recoverable costs — Involvement of more than one lawyer — No effect — Assessment mainly in the light of the total number of hours’ work objectively necessary for the purposes of the proceedings

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

2. Judicial proceedings — Costs — Taxation — Recoverable costs — Definition — Value added tax — Inclusion in the case of a person not liable to tax

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

1. In assessing the amount of the recoverable costs and the amount of work generated by the proceedings before the Civil Service Tribunal, the primary consideration of the judicature is the total number of hours of work which may appear to be objectively necessary for the purpose of those proceedings, irrespective of the number of lawyers who may have provided the services in question.

(see paras 21, 26)

See:

26 April 2010, F‑7/08 DEP Schönberger v Parliament, para. 29

2. An applicant who is not a taxable person for the purposes of value added tax has no possibility of recovering the value added tax paid on the services for which his lawyers have invoiced him. Thus, the value added tax paid on the fees that are judged to be necessary represents for that person expenses incurred for the purpose of the proceedings within the meaning of Article 91(b) of the Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal.

(see para. 31)

See:

8 July 2004, T‑7/98 DEP, T‑208/98 DEP and T‑109/99 DEP De Nicola v EIB, para. 37
ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE SECOND CHAMBER OF THE CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL

5 May 2010

Case F-70/09

Vladimir Nikolchov

v

European Commission

(Amicable settlement on the initiative of the Tribunal — Removal from the register)

Application: brought under Articles 236 EC and 152 EA, in which Mr Nikolchov, a member of the contract staff of the Commission from 1 October 2008 to 15 January 2009, then an official at the same institution from 16 January 2009, seeks, first, the fixing of his place of recruitment at Sofia (Bulgaria) and, second, the benefit of the daily allowance under Articles 92 and 25 of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union and Article 10 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union for the duration of his training period, plus one month.

Held: Case F-70/09 Nikolchov v Commission is removed from the register of the Tribunal. Notice is given that the applicant has withdrawn his action, including in relation to costs. Notice is given that the Commission is to fix the applicant’s place of origin at Sofia (Bulgaria) with retroactive effect from 2009 and will reimburse the applicant’s removal expenses from that city, subject to the applicant’s satisfying the other conditions laid down in Article 9 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations of Officials. The Commission is to pay the applicant a fixed sum of EUR 2 500 towards his costs. The applicant is to bear the remainder of his costs. The Commission is to bear its own costs.

Summary

Officials — Actions — Amicable settlement of the dispute before the Civil Service Tribunal — Removal from the register

(Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal, Arts 69 and 74)
ORDER OF THE EUROPEAN UNION CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL

(First Chamber)

10 September 2014

Jacques Pierre Roumimper

v

European Police Office (Europol)

‛Civil service — Procedure — Taxation of costs’

Application:

for taxation of recoverable costs, brought under Article 92 of the Rules of Procedure by Mr Roumimper following the judgment in Roumimper v Europol (F‑41/09, EU:F:2010:66).

Held:

The total amount of costs to be reimbursed by the European Police Office to Mr Roumimper is fixed at EUR 1 343.18, plus default interest from the date of service of the present order to the date of payment, at the rate set by the European Central Bank for its principal refinancing operations applicable during the above period, increased by two points.

Summary

Judicial proceedings — Costs — Taxation — Recoverable costs — Elements to be taken into consideration — Agreement on fees concluded between a party and his lawyer — Not included

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

The Union judicature is not empowered to tax the fees payable by the parties to their own lawyers, but to determine the amount of those fees which may be recovered from the party ordered to pay the costs. It follows that proof of payment of the costs whose recovery is sought is not necessary for the purpose of taxation by the Tribunal of the recoverable costs.

In ruling on an application for taxation of costs, the Union judicature is not obliged to take account of any agreement in relation to fees concluded between the party concerned and his agents or advisers.

Consequently, the fact that it was decided, under an agreement between the applicant and his lawyers, that he would not pay them any fee does not affect the applicant’s right to recover the costs incurred in the main proceedings.

(see paras 14, 19, 20)

See:

orders in Leeuwarder Papierwarenfabriek v Commission, 318/82, EU:C:1985:468, para. 2; C.A.S. v Commission, C‑204/07 P-DEP, EU:C:2009:526, para. 13; and Kronofrance v Germany and Others, C‑75/05 P-DEP, EU:C:2013:458, para. 30
EN
ReportsofCases
ECLI:EU:F:2010 :106 1ORDER OF THE PR ESIDENT O F THE FIRST CHAMBER OF THE CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL
16 September 2010
Case F-90/09
F rédéric E r notte
v
European Comm ission
(Amicable settlement on th e initiative of the Tribunal — Removal from th e register)
Application:brought u nder Articles 236 E C and 152 E A, in which M r Ernotte seeks, principally, an 
order that the Commission p ay him compe nsation for the material and non -material loss 
suffered as a r esult of the unreasonable pe riod in which it handled th e procedure for 
recognition o f the accidental nature and occupational origin of the infarct which he 
suffered on 28 August 2002 .
Held: Case F-90/09 E rnotte v C omm ission is removed from th e register of the Tribunal. The 
Commission i s to pay th e applicant the fixed sum o f EUR 10 000, which includes his 
law yer’s fees.
Summ ary
Officials — Actions — Amicable se ttlement of the dispute before the Civil Service Tribunal — 
Removal from t he register
(Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal, Art. 69)
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