ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
The application of new general implementing provisions for Articles 11 and 12 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations concerning the transfer to the EU pension scheme of pension rights acquired under another pension scheme, applied for before those provisions were adopted but effected after their entry into force, is not contrary to Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations.

In that regard, according to a generally accepted principle and save as otherwise provided, a new rule applies immediately to situations yet to arise and to the future effects of situations which arose, but were not fully constituted, under the old rule. That is so except for situations originating and becoming definitive under the previous legislation, which create acquired rights. A right is considered to be acquired when the event giving rise to it occurred before the legislative amendment. However, that is not the case when the event creating the right did not take place under the legislation that has been amended.

First of all, Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations does not preclude the immediate application of the new general implementing provisions.

Secondly, neither the communication, to an official or other staff member who has submitted an application for a transfer to the EU pension scheme of pension rights acquired under another pension scheme, of a proposal concerning the additional pensionable years to be credited, let alone the mere submission of such an application, alters the legal position of that person or produces binding legal effects. Consequently, the official or other staff member did not have acquired rights capable of being infringed by the application of the new provisions.

Furthermore, the right of an official or other staff member to have additional pensionable years credited is not fully constituted until the capital representing his rights acquired under another scheme has been transferred to the EU pension scheme.

In addition, individuals may not rely on the principle of protection of legitimate expectations to challenge the application of a new regulatory provision, particularly in an area where the legislature has a broad discretion.

(see paras 23-26, 28, 35)

See:

Judgment of 13 October 2015, Commission v Verile and Gjergji, T‑104/14 P, EU:T:2015:776, paras 151 to 154 and 170 and the case-law cited therein
ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE THIRD CHAMBER OF THE EUROPEAN UNION CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL

17 November 2014

Yannick Durand

v

European Commission

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

Application:

under Article 270 TFEU, applicable to the EAEC Treaty pursuant to Article 106a thereof, in which Mr Durand seeks annulment, first, of the decision of 21 May 2013 stating that his family allowances would be paid directly to his former wife, the mother of his child, and, second, of the decision of 23 September 2013 rejecting his complaint. In the same application, Mr Durand also seeks an order that the European Commission pay him the entirety of the sums due in respect of those allowances.

Held:

Case F-126/13 Durand v Commission is removed from the register of the Tribunal. Mr Durand and the European Commission are to bear the costs in accordance with the agreement between them. The Council of the European Union is to bear its own costs.

Summary

Actions brought by officials — Amicable settlement of the dispute before the Civil Service Tribunal — Recording of the agreement in a separate document signed by the Judge-Rapporteur and the Registrar

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

The terms of an agreement between parties obtained as part of an amicable settlement before the Civil Service Tribunal may be recorded in a document signed by the Judge-Rapporteur and by the Registrar in accordance with the first sub-paragraph of Article 91(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the Tribunal, especially where the content of that agreement involves the consent of the applicant’s former wife.

(see para. 7)
3

Article 121 of the Rules of Procedure, entitled ‘Judgments by default’, provides as follows: ‘1. If a defendant on whom an application initiating proceedings has been duly served fails to respond to the application in the proper form and within the time-limit prescribed, the applicant may apply to the Tribunal for judgment by default. ... 3. A judgment by default shall be enforceable. The Tribunal may, however, grant a stay of enforcement until it has given its decision on any application under Article 41 of the Statute [of the Court] to set aside the judgment ...’
ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE SECOND CHAMBER OF THE EUROPEAN UNION CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL

2 September 2015

Nicolas Henri Astier

v

European External Action Service (EEAS)

‛Amicable settlement of the proceedings — Article 91(2) of the Rules of Procedure — Agreement of 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 Mr Astier sought, essentially, annulment of the decision of the European External Action Service (EEAS) limiting the amount to be reimbursed to him in respect of relocation from his place of employment to his place of origin to EUR 7960, as opposed to the amount of EUR 17940 sought, and making such reimbursement subject to certain conditions.

Held:

Case F‑126/14 is removed from the register of the Civil Service Tribunal following the agreement reached between Mr Astier and the European External Action Service. Mr Astier and the European External Action Service are to bear the costs in accordance with the terms of their agreement.

Summary

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

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

(see para. 4)
The absence of a reply from a party’s lawyer before the European Union courts to a letter from the Civil Service Tribunal informing him of its intention to make use of Article 34(1) and (2) of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure cannot prevent those provisions, concerning the exclusion from the proceedings of a party’s lawyer, from being applied to him. Where a lawyer is being excluded because he is helping to perpetuate his client’s conduct in fruitlessly adding to the workload of the EU courts, the absence of a reply from the lawyer concerned in no way calls into question the fact that his client’s propensity to opt automatically and indiscriminately for litigation is such as to adversely affect the proper administration of justice, nor the fact that the lawyer’s conduct directly aids in perpetuating the querulous attitude complained of against his client.

Article 34(1) and (2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal are to be applied by excluding a party’s lawyer before the European Union courts from the proceedings and by sending a copy of the exclusion order to the competent national Bar of which he is a member where there is sufficient evidence that, by his conduct, the lawyer has indiscriminately encouraged his client in his querulous attitude, which, in view of the particularly large number of actions which that client has brought before the three courts of the Union — of which a lawyer exercising ordinary care must have been aware — has proved to be especially prejudicial to the proper administration of justice.

In that connection, the fact that the lawyer concerned brought only two cases, under his signature and on behalf of his client, before the Civil Service Tribunal is not, given the history of litigation brought by his predecessors, of which he must have been aware, such as to legitimise his conduct as a lawyer, which should consist in assisting and representing his client while still having regard for the need for the proper administration of justice as a matter of public interest.

(see paras 14, 21, 22)
The application of new general implementing provisions for Articles 11 and 12 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations, in respect of a transfer to the EU pension scheme of pension rights acquired under another pension scheme, requested prior to the adoption of those provisions but carried out after they had entered into force, is not contrary to Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations.

In this regard, according to a generally accepted principle and save as otherwise provided, a new rule applies immediately to situations yet to arise and to the future effects of situations which arose, but were not fully constituted, under the old rule. That is so except for situations originating and becoming definitive under the previous rule, which create acquired rights. A right is considered to be acquired when the event giving rise to it occurred before the legislative amendment. However, that is not the case when the event creating the right did not take place under the legislation that has been amended.

In the first place, Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations does not prevent such immediate application of new general implementing provisions.

Secondly, neither the notification, to an official or other member of staff who has submitted an application for a transfer to the EU pension scheme of pension rights acquired under another pension scheme, of a proposal concerning additional pensionable years, nor, far less, the mere submission of such an application, alters the legal situation of the person concerned or produces binding legal effects. Accordingly, there were no acquired rights held by an official or other member of staff which were capable of being infringed by the application of the new provisions.

Moreover, the right of an official or other member of staff to be credited with pensionable years is not fully constituted until the capital sum representing his rights acquired under another scheme has been transferred to the EU pension scheme.

Furthermore, individuals cannot rely on the principle of protection of legitimate expectations in order to oppose the application of a new legislative provision, especially in a sphere in which the legislature enjoys a considerable degree of latitude.

(see paras 26-29, 31, 37)

See:

Judgment of 13 October 2015 in Commission v Verile and Gjergji, T-104/14 P, EU:T:2015:776, paras 151 to 154 and 170 and the case-law cited
ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE SECOND CHAMBER

OF THE EUROPEAN UNION CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL

15 September 2015

John Clausen

v

European Commission

‛Amicable settlement of the proceedings — Article 91(1) of the Rules of Procedure — Agreement of 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 Mr Clausen sought, essentially, annulment of the decision of 27 May 2014 by which the Brussels (Belgium) settlements office of the Joint Sickness Insurance Scheme of the institutions of the European Union rejected his request for payment of 100% of the medical expenses relating to surgery on cataracts affecting both his eyes, on the ground that there was no direct link between the surgical procedure and the applicant’s serious illness.

Held:

Case F‑46/15 is removed from the register following the agreement reached between Mr Clausen and the European Commission. Mr Clausen and the European Commission are to bear the costs in accordance with the terms of their agreement.

Summary

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

(Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal, Arts 90(1) and 91(1))

(see paras 2-4)
When a candidate whose request to be admitted to a competition has been rejected seeks reconsideration of that decision on the basis of a precise provision binding on the administration, it is the decision taken by the selection board after reconsideration which must be regarded as the act adversely affecting him within the meaning of Article 90(2) or, as the case may be, Article 91(1) of the Staff Regulations.

It is for the selection board in a competition to assess in each case whether the professional experience stated by each candidate corresponds to the level required by the notice of competition. The selection board enjoys broad discretion in that regard, under the provisions of the Staff Regulations concerning competition procedures, when assessing the nature and duration of the previous experience of candidates and its relevance to the post to be filled. In its review of legality, the Civil Service Tribunal must therefore confine itself to ascertaining whether the selection board’s exercise of that discretion was free from manifest errors. In the context of that review, the EU Court must take account of the fact that it is for the candidate in a competition to provide the selection board with all the information and documents which he regards as necessary for the purposes of examining his application in order to enable the selection board to determine whether he fulfils the conditions laid down by the competition notice, all the more so if he has been expressly and formally requested to do so. The selection board, when giving its decision on the admission of candidates to a competition, is therefore entitled to limit its examination to the application forms and the documents annexed thereto.

Furthermore, in view of the broad discretion granted to the selection board, in order to establish that it committed a manifest error in assessing the facts such as to justify the annulment of the decision taken, the evidence, which it is for the applicant to adduce, must be sufficient to make the findings of the selection board in question implausible.

(see paras 35-38)

Judgment of 12 July 1989 in Belardinelli and Others v Court of Justice, 225/87, EU:C:1989:309, paras 13 and 14

Judgments of 12 December 1996 in AIUFFASS and AKT v Commission, T‑380/94, EU:T:1996:195, para. 59; 13 March 2002 in Martínez Alarcón v Commission, T‑357/00, T‑361/00, T‑363/00 and T‑364/00, EU:T:2002:66, para. 76; 25 March 2004 in Petrich v Commission, T‑145/02, EU:T:2004:91, para. 37, and 12 February 2008 in BUPA and Others v Commission, T‑289/03, EU:T:2008:29, para. 221

Judgments of 25 November 2008 in Iordanova v Commission, F‑53/07, EU:F:2008:148, para. 34 and the case-law cited therein, and 24 April 2013 in Demeneix v Commission, F‑96/12, EU:F:2013:52, paras 42 to 45 and the case-law cited therein
ORDER OF THE EUROPEAN UNION CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL

(Single Judge)

18 July 2016

HE

v

European Commission

‛Amicable settlement of the proceedings — 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 HE seeks annulment of the decision of the appointing authority of the European Commission, of 27 October 2014, by which it dismissed her upon completion of her pre-establishment probationary period.

Held:

Case F‑93/15 is removed from the register of the Tribunal following the agreement reached between HE and the European Commission. HE and the Commission are to bear the costs in accordance with 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(1))

(see para. 8)
10

Admittedly, on 11 August 2015, when the application bringing proceedings was lodged, the period within which the applicant could bring proceedings had not yet elapsed, so that, until 21 September 2015, she could have submitted an application, that time signed by a lawyer whom she had instructed to represent her. However, it must be pointed out that it was not for the Tribunal, in the period between those two dates, to draw that matter to the applicant’s notice in order to make good her lack of diligence in observing requirements such as those provided for in the third and fourth paragraphs of Article 19 of the Statute of the Court and the first subparagraph of Article 45(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Tribunal (see orders of 8 November 2007 in Belgium v Commission, C‑242/07 P, EU:C:2007:672, paragraph 23, and of 13 December 2013 in Marcuccio v Commission, F‑2/13, EU:F:2013:214, paragraph 33). In any event, the Registry does not have the power to take a decision relating to the admissibility or inadmissibility of an action and therefore it cannot provide any indication to the parties in this respect which pre-judges the position to be adopted by the Tribunal (order of 15 March 1984 in Vaupel v Court of Justice, 131/83, EU:C:1984:114, paragraph 10).
ORDER OF THE EUROPEAN UNION CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL (Single Judge)

12 May 2016 ( *1 )

‛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’

In Case F‑51/15,

ACTION brought under Article 270 TFEU, applicable to the EAEC Treaty pursuant to Article 106a thereof,

FR, former member of the temporary staff of the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), residing in Düsseldorf (Germany), represented by L. Levi and A. Blot, lawyers,

applicant,

v

European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), represented by F. Manuhutu and A. Haug, acting as Agents, and A. Duron, lawyer,

defendant,

THE CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL (Single Judge),

Judge: E. Perillo,

Registrar: W. Hakenberg,

makes the following

Order

1 By application received at the Tribunal Registry on 27 March 2015, FR brought the present action seeking, essentially, the annulment of the decision of 13 June 2014 by which the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) dismissed him at the end of the extension of his probationary period as a member of the temporary staff and compensation in respect of the material and non-material harm allegedly suffered.

2 Pursuant to Article 15(1) and (2) of the Rules of Procedure, the First Chamber of the Tribunal, to which the case had been assigned, unanimously decided, the parties having been heard, that the case would be heard and determined by the Judge-Rapporteur sitting as a single Judge.

3 At the end of the hearing on 13 April 2016, the single Judge, at the request of the parties, decided to initiate an attempt to reach an amicable settlement.

4 After several informal meetings with the single Judge, the parties came to a definitive agreement on a solution bringing the dispute to an end.

5 The terms of the agreement were recorded in the minutes of 13 April 2016, duly signed by the parties. That agreement also concerns the costs.

6 It is therefore necessary, pursuant to Article 91(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the Tribunal, to remove the present case from the Register of the Tribunal.

7 Under Article 91(3) of the Rules of Procedure, the costs are to be borne by the parties in accordance with the terms of their agreement.

On those grounds, THE CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL (Single Judge) hereby orders:

1. Case F‑51/15 shall be removed from the Register of the Tribunal as a result of the agreement concluded between FR and the European Aviation Safety Agency.

2. FR and the European Aviation Safety Agency shall bear the costs in accordance with the terms of their agreement. Luxembourg, 12 May 2016.

W. Hakenberg Registrar E. Perillo Judge

( *1 ) Language of the case: English.
ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE EUROPEAN UNION CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL

21 July 2016

HP

v

European Agency for the operational management of large-scale IT systems in the area of freedom, security and justice (eu-LISA)

and

European Commission

‛Civil service — Social security — Joint Sickness Insurance Scheme — Reimbursement of medical expenses of the spouse of a member of the temporary staff — Rejection of a request for prior authorisation — Procedure for interim relief — Application for interim measures — Urgency — None’

Application:

under Articles 278 TFEU and 157 EA, and under Article 279 TFEU, applicable to the EAEC Treaty pursuant to Article 106a thereof, by which HP essentially seeks a suspension of the implementation of the decision of 14 March 2016 whereby the head of the Brussels (Belgium) Settlement Office of the Joint Sickness Insurance Scheme rejected a request for prior authorisation for reimbursement of the costs of treating the Hepatitis C from which her spouse suffers.

Held:

HP’s application for interim measures is dismissed. The costs are reserved.

Summary

Application for interim measures — Suspension of implementation of a measure — Conditions for granting — Serious and irreparable damage — Interest of the applicant in obtaining the suspension sought — Negative administrative decision — Suspension not capable of altering the situation of the person concerned (Art. 278 TFEU) Application for interim measures — Suspension of implementation of a measure — Interim measures — Conditions for granting — Urgency — Serious and irreparable damage — No such damage — Relevance of the right to working conditions which respect the health, safety or dignity of the individual — None (Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Arts 31 and 35; Staff Regulations, Art. 1(6))
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 117/38

Action brought on 2 April 2007 — Putterie-de-Beukelaer v Commission

(Case F-31/07)

(2007/C 117/62)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Françoise Putterie-de-Beukelaer (XX) (represented by: E. Boigelot, lawyer)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

— annulment of the applicant's Career Development Report (‘CDR’) concerning the period from 1 January 2005 to 31 December 2005, including appeal procedures and other decisions relating to them, and specifically of section 6.5, ‘Potential’, in so far as it does not accept that the applicant has the potential to carry out functions in category B*;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of her appeal, the applicant puts forward, first, the fact that the administration made manifest errors of assessment in so far as it did not accept that she had the potential to carry out functions in category B* for the purpose of the attestation procedure provided for in Article 10(3) of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communities (‘the Staff Regulations’). In particular, in contrast to what was stated in the applicant's CDR, her duties as head of computer training fall within the scope of category B*.

Secondly, the applicant alleges infringement of Article 26 of the Staff Regulations, of the principles of respect for the rights of the defence, transparency, the audi alteram partem rule and the principle of sound administration of staff. In particular, she submits that some documents used for the purposes of her appraisal were not communicated to her at the appropriate time.

Thirdly, the applicant raises the infringement of Article 25(2) of the Staff Regulations and of the duty to give reasons.

Fourthly, the applicant alleges the infringement of the principle of equal treatment of staff and non-discrimination, in so far as the duties carried out by a head of computer training, she submits, are assessed in different ways for the purposes of the attestation procedure depending on the directorates general and the hierarchical superiors.