JUDGMENT OF THE EUROPEAN UNION CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL

(First Chamber)

5 November 2013

Margaret Doyle

v

European Police Office (Europol)

‛Civil service — Europol staff — Non-renewal of a contract — Refusal to grant a contract of an indefinite duration — Annulment by the Tribunal — Compliance with the judgment of the Tribunal’

Application:

under Article 270 TFUE, in which Ms Doyle seeks, in particular, annulment of the decision of 28 November 2011 by which the European Police Office (Europol) granted her the sum of EUR 3 000 in order to comply with the judgment of the Tribunal of 29 June 2010 in Case F‑37/09 Doyle v Europol (‘the judgment of 29 June 2010’).

Held:

The decision of 28 November 2011 by which the European Police Office (Europol) granted Ms Doyle the sum of EUR 3 000 in order to comply with the judgment of the Tribunal of 29 June 2010 in Case F‑37/09 Doyle v Europol is annulled. The European Police Office is to bear its own costs and is ordered to pay those incurred by Ms Doyle.

Summary

Actions brought by officials — Judgment annulling a measure — Effects — Obligation to implement — Principle of sound administration — Special difficulties — Fair compensation for the disadvantage resulting for the applicant from the annulled measure — Conditions

(Art. 266 TFEU; Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 41)

The rules governing compliance with judgments annulling a measure must also be read, in the particular case of a civil service judgment, in the light of Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union laying down the principle of sound administration, and in particular paragraph 1 of that Article, concerning the right of every person to have his or her affairs handled impartially, fairly and within a reasonable time by the institutions, bodies, offices and agencies of the Union.

It is only when compliance with a judgment annulling a measure poses special difficulties that the institution concerned may take any decision which is such as to compensate fairly for the disadvantage resulting for the persons concerned from the annulled decision and may, in that context, establish a dialogue with them with a view to seeking to reach an agreement offering them fair compensation for the illegality of which they were victims.

Where a judgment of the Union judicature annuls a decision of the administration because of an infringement of the rights of the defence, it is for the administration concerned to show that it has taken all possible measures to reverse the effects of the illegality established by the Tribunal. The administration may not, therefore, merely state that it is no longer possible to restore the victim of that infringement of a fundamental right to a position in which he may assert his rights of the defence, particularly because of decisions which the administration itself subsequently adopted in the same field. Accepting such a course of action would be tantamount to rendering entirely meaningless the obligation to ensure the rights of the defence first and foremost and to comply with the judgment finding that they had been infringed. It is only where, for reasons for which the administration concerned cannot be held responsible, it is objectively difficult or even impossible to reverse the effects of the infringement of the rights of the defence found by the annulling judgment that that judgment may lead to the payment of compensation.

(see paras 38-39, 50)

See:

24 June 2008, F‑15/05 Andres and Others v ECB, para. 132 and the case-law cited therein