ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Staff case summary



Staff case summary

Summary

Officials – Administration’s duty to have regard for the welfare of officials – Obligation to address to an official an individual decision worded in a language of which he has a thorough knowledge

(Art. 21 EC; Charter of Fundamental Rights, Art. 41(4); Rules of Procedure of the Commission, Annex, para. 4)

The institutions are under a duty to have regard for the welfare of their officials and therefore to address to an official an individual decision worded in a language of which he has a thorough knowledge.

It cannot be inferred from the third paragraph of Article 21 EC, or from paragraph 4 of the Code of good administrative conduct, or from Article 41(4) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights that every decision addressed by a Community institution to one of its officials should be drawn up in the initial language of correspondence. Those provisions are applicable to relations between the institutions and their staff only where the latter address a document to the institutions solely in their capacity as citizens of the European Union and not in their capacity as officials or other staff of the Communities. If the institutions were obliged, in all events, to reply to a request from an official in the same language as that used in that request, it would result in insurmountable difficulties for the institutions.

(see paras 60-65)

See:

T-197/98 Rudolph v Commission [2000] ECR-SC I‑A‑55 and II‑241, para. 46; T-118/99 Bonaiti Brighina v Commission [2001] ECR-SC I‑A‑25 and II‑97, para. 13; T-95/04 Lavagnoli v Commission [2006] ECR-SC I‑A‑2‑121 and II‑A‑2‑569, para. 48

F‑51/05 and F‑18/06 Duyster v Commission [2007] ECR-SC I‑A‑1‑0000 and II‑A‑1‑0000, paras 58 and 59
Staff case summary



Staff case summary

Summary

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

(Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art 91(b)); Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal, Art. 122)

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. As regards the scale of the work, the Court must take account of the total number of hours of work capable of being judged objectively necessary for the purpose of those proceedings.

(see paras 24, 25, 28)

See:

T-290/04 DEP Kaysersberg v Commission [1998] ECR II‑4105, para. 20; order of 9 September 2002 in T-182/00 DEP Pannella v Parliament , not published in the ECR, para. 29; T-171/00 DEP Spruyt v Commission [2002] ECR-SC I‑A‑225 and II‑1127, paras 25, 26 and 29; 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. 32
ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE FIRST CHAMBER OF THE CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL

23 January 2008

Case F-62/07

Chantal De Fays

v

Commission of the European Communities

(Amicable settlement at the initiative of the Tribunal – Removal from the register)

Application: brought under Articles 236 EC and 152 EA, in which Ms De Fays seeks in particular an order for the Commission to pay her damages for non-material loss suffered as a result of delays in drawing up her Career Development Reports for 2003, 2004 and 2005 and of the repetition of assessments contained in those reports, which were not an accurate reflection of her actual performance.

Held: Case F‑62/07 De Fays v Commission is removed from the register of the Tribunal. The Commission undertakes to pay the applicant the symbolic amount of one euro. The Commission is to pay reasonable costs and expenses incurred by the applicant. 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 PRESIDENT OF THE CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL

8 November 2007

Case F-50/07 AJ

Valentina Hristova

v

Commission of the European Communities

(Legal aid)

Application: in which Mrs Hristova 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 on the date when the application for legal aid was submitted, pursuant to Article 3(4) of Council Decision 2004/752/EC, Euratom of 2 November 2004 establishing the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (OJ 2004 L 333, p. 7), in order to bring an action for annulment of the decision of 3 April 2007 of the selection board in open competition EPSO/AST/14/06 refusing to admit her to that competition, organised by the European Communities Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) to constitute a reserve of assistants with Bulgarian citizenship in the secretarial field (OJ 2007 C 145 A, p. 22).

Held: The applicant is granted legal aid. An amount corresponding to the costs incurred by the applicant is to be paid to the lawyers assisting her, upon production of supporting documents, up to a maximum of EUR 1 000 for the written procedure and EUR 1 000 for the oral procedure. Mr Angel Kerelov and Mr Georgi Kerelov are appointed as the lawyers representing the applicant.

Summary

Procedure – Application for legal aid – Conditions for granting

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

18 February 2009

Case F-70/07

Luigi Marcuccio

v

Commission of the European Communities

(Civil service – Officials – Action for damages – Taxation of costs – Manifest lack of jurisdiction – Referral pursuant to Article 8(2) of the Annex to the Statute of the Court of Justice – Manifest inadmissibility)

Application: brought under Articles 236 EC and 152 EA, in which Mr Marcuccio essentially seeks an order that the Commission pay compensation for the harm allegedly suffered as a result of the refusal to reimburse him in respect of the recoverable costs purportedly incurred in order of 6 March 2006 in Case T-176/04 Marcuccio v Commission, not published in the ECR.

Held: The action is referred back to the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in so far as concerns the taxation of the recoverable costs relating to Case T‑176/04. The remainder of the action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible. The costs of the action are reserved in so far as the action relates to the taxation of the recoverable costs relating to Case T‑176/04. Each party is to bear its own costs relating to the remainder of the application.

Summary

Procedure – Costs – Taxation – Recoverable costs – Court having jurisdiction

(Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 92(1))

A claim seeking the annulment of a contested decision and of the decision rejecting a complaint lodged against that contested decision, as well as a claim seeking an order that an institution pay an official a sum of money with default interest and the capitalisation of interest, the actual aim of which is to obtain payment by the institution of recoverable costs relating to an action which the Court of First Instance has concluded and for which an order as to the costs has been made, must be regarded, in view of their purpose, as an application for taxation of costs. Since, under Article 92(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, such an application should have been made to that Court, the Civil Service Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to rule on the abovementioned claims.

In that respect, it is for the court alone to assess and not for the parties to decide on the precise legal characterisation of the claims in an action for the purpose of determining whether the court has jurisdiction to consider them.

(see paras 16-18)
ORDER OF THE CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL (Second Chamber)

10 June 2008

Case F-40/07

Cécile Baudelet-Leclaire

v

Commission of the European Communities

(Civil service – Open competition – Failure to include candidate’s name on the reserve list – Equal treatment)

Application: brought under Articles 236 EC and 152 EA, in which Mrs Baudelet-Leclaire essentially seeks annulment of open competition EPSO/AST/7/05 organised to constitute a reserve pool of assistants (AST 3) in the fields of ‘financial management/accountancy’ and ‘project/contract management’.

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

Summary

Officials – Equal treatment – Recruitment – Competitions

(Staff Regulations, Annex III, Art. 5)

In an open competition to join the Community civil service, open equally to candidates who have worked or work for an institution and to candidates without such professional experience, statistics showing a higher success rate for candidates in the first group do not give grounds for assuming that there has been discrimination between candidates from either group, since that difference could be accounted for by a number of objective factors such as, for example, better knowledge of the competition field.

(see paras 41, 43-44)

See:

T-294/03 Gibault v Commission [2005] ECR-SC I‑A‑141 and II‑635, para. 53; T-361/03 Vanlangendonck v Commission [2005] ECR-SC I‑A‑377 and II‑1709, para. 52; T-100/04 Giannini v Commission [2008] ECR-SC I-A-2-0000 and II-A-2-0000, para. 157
ORDER OF THE CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL

(First Chamber)

10 November 2009

Case F-70/07

Luigi Marcuccio

v

Commission of the European Communities

(Civil service – Officials – Action for damages – Availability of a parallel remedy – Manifestly inadmissible)

Application: brought under Articles 236 EC and 152 EA, in which Mr Marcuccio seeks, in particular, an order that the Commission pay compensation for the harm allegedly suffered as a result of its refusal to reimburse him the recoverable costs purportedly incurred in Case T‑176/04.

Held: The first, second, third and sixth heads of claim in the action must be dismissed as manifestly inadmissible. Each party is to bear its own costs relating to the first, second, third and sixth heads of claim in the applicant’s action, including those incurred in T‑176/04 DEP.

Summary

Procedure – Costs – Taxation – Purpose

(Art. 236 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 92(1); Staff Regulations, Art. 91)

The legislature has introduced a special procedure for the taxation of costs where the parties disagree on the amount and nature of the recoverable costs following a judgment or order by which the Court of First Instance brought proceedings to an end and made an order as to the costs. Furthermore, that special procedure, laid down in Article 92(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, concerning the taxation of costs, excludes any claim for the same sums, or sums expended for the same purposes, in connection with proceedings alleging non‑contractual liability of the Community. Thus an applicant may not bring an application, on the basis of Article 236 EC and Article 91 of the Staff Regulations, which has, in reality, the same subject-matter as an application for taxation of costs.

(see paras 16-17)

See:

T‑351/03 Schneider Electric v Commission [2007] ECR II‑2237, para. 297
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.

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. 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 Union 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 Union 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.

Moreover, when it comes to lawyers’ travel expenses, as a general rule only travel expenses which a lawyer incurs for travel from his chambers to the hearing before the Tribunal in Luxembourg may be reimbursed.

However, it may be that at the time when the Tribunal fixes the date of the hearing the lawyer concerned may have already undertaken professional engagements in a town other than that in which his chambers are located. The profession of lawyer enjoys the right to provide services freely within the Union. That is why travel expenses incurred in travelling to the hearing in Luxembourg from the town of the professional engagement described above may also be regarded as necessary costs. It is nevertheless for the lawyer, in such a case, to prove that he had a professional engagement in a town other than that in which his chambers are located, and that he actually incurred the resulting travel expenses to Luxembourg.

(see paras 24, 25, 36-37)

X v Parliament, paras 22 and 23
ORDER OF THE CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL (First Chamber)

22 June 2010

Case F-78/09

Luigi Marcuccio

v

European Commission

(Civil service — Officials — Action for damages — Reimbursement of costs — Availability of a parallel remedy — Manifestly inadmissible)

Application: brought under Articles 236 EC and 152 EA, in which Mr Marcuccio seeks, in particular, an order that the Commission pay compensation for the harm allegedly suffered as a result of its refusal to reimburse him the recoverable costs purportedly incurred in Case T-18/04.

Held: The applicant’s action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible. Each party is to bear its own costs.

Summary

1. Officials — Actions — Action for damages — Application for annulment of the pre-litigation decision rejecting the claim for damages — Application not independent of the claim for damages

(Staff Regulations, Arts 90 and 91)

2. Procedure — Costs — Taxation — Purpose

(Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal, Art. 92(1); Staff Regulations, Art. 91)

1. An institution’s decision rejecting a claim for compensation forms an integral part of the preliminary administrative procedure which precedes an action to establish liability before the General Court. Consequently, claims for annulment of it cannot be assessed in isolation from the claims relating to compensation.

The measure setting out the position adopted by the institution during the pre-litigation stage only has the effect of allowing the party who has suffered damage to apply to the Court for compensation.

(see para. 17)

See:

T-90/95 Gill v Commission [1997] ECR-SC I-A-471 and II-1231, para. 45; T-77/99 Ojha v Commission [2001] ECR-SC I-A-61 and II-293, para. 68; T-209/99 Hoyer v Commission [2002] ECR-SC I-A-243 and II-1211, para. 32

2. The special procedure laid down in Article 92(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, concerning the taxation of costs, excludes any claim for the same sums, or sums expended for the same purposes, in connection with proceedings alleging non-contractual liability of the Union.

Thus Article 92(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court prevents an applicant from bringing an action for damages, on the basis of Article 91 of the Staff Regulations, which has, in reality, the same subject-matter as an application for taxation of costs.

(see paras 20, 22)

See:

T-351/03 Schneider Electric v Commission [2007] ECR II-2237, para. 297

F-70/07 Marcuccio v Commission [2009] ECR-SC I-A-1-423 and II-A-1-2293, paras 17 and 18
The provisions of the Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal relating to legal aid, namely Articles 95 to 98, do not cover exhaustively every conceivable hypothetical case.

In particular, those provisions do not cover the question of the amount which the party ordered to pay the costs must reimburse, by way of fees, to the lawyer of an applicant in receipt of legal aid.

First, it is clear from Article 97(3), third subparagraph, of those Rules of Procedure that the purpose of the order granting legal aid, which may either specify an amount to be paid by the cashier of the Tribunal to the lawyer instructed to represent the person concerned or fix a limit which the lawyer’s disbursements and fees may not, in principle, exceed, is not to determine the costs recoverable by the successful party but to secure effective access to justice for any party who, because of his financial situation, is wholly or partly unable to meet the costs involved in legal assistance and representation by a lawyer in proceedings before the Tribunal.

Secondly, it is clear from the wording of Article 95(1), second subparagraph, of those Rules that the legal aid granted by the order may cover, in whole or in part, the costs involved in legal assistance and representation by a lawyer in proceedings before the Civil Service Tribunal. In that regard, it is well known that the fees charged by lawyers may differ considerably depending on the Member State in which they practise and the level of their specialisation in a particular field, or even their reputation within their profession. It is not excluded that, in the light of the sum guaranteed by the Tribunal in its order, the applicant may undertake to pay his lawyer the portion of his fees not covered by legal aid in the event of being ordered to pay the costs.

Moreover, a lawyer who has agreed to represent the person concerned pro bono at the time the application is lodged cannot be required to forgo some of his fees where the other party is ordered to pay the costs at the end of the proceedings.

(see paras 19-23)
ORDER OF THE EUROPEAN UNION CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL

(First Chamber)

10 September 2014

Jacqueline Goddijn

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 Ms Goddijn following the judgment in Goddijn v Europol (F‑39/09, EU:F:2010:65).

Held:

The total amount of costs to be reimbursed by the European Police Office to Ms Goddijn 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 her lawyers, that she 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
ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE FIRST CHAMBER OF THE CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL

8 December 2010

Case F-77/10

Fernando Arroyo Redondo

v

European Commission

(Amicable settlement — Removal from the register)

Application: brought under Article 270 TFEU, applicable to the EAEC Treaty pursuant to Article 106a thereof, in which Mr Arroyo Redondo seeks annulment of the Commission’s decision of 20 November 2009 not to include him on the list of officials promoted to grade AD 10 under the 2009 promotion exercise.

Held: Case F-77/10 Arroyo Redondo v Commission is removed from the register. The parties are to bear the costs as agreed between them.

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, Art. 69)
Staff case summary

Staff case summary Summary Actions brought by officials — Amicable settlement of the proceedings before the Civil Service Tribunal — Removal from the register (Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal, Art. 69)

ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE EUROPEAN UNION CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL

16 October 2013

Simone Thérèse De Roos-Le Large

v

European Commission

‛Amicable settlement of the proceedings — Article 69(1) of the Rules of Procedure — Agreement between the parties at 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 Ms De Roos-Le Large seeks annulment of the decision of the European Commission by which the institution requested repayment of the sum of EUR 119 507.90 within two weeks of receipt of that decision, otherwise it would carry out compulsory enforcement.

Held:

Case F‑50/10 De Roos-Le Large v Commission is removed from the register of the Tribunal. The parties are to bear the costs in accordance with the agreement concluded between them.

Summary

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

(Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal, Art. 69)