ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
ORDER OF THE CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL

(First Chamber)

12 June 2009

Case F-65/08

Michael Kipp

v

European Police Office (Europol)

(Civil service – Staff of Europol – Non‑extension of employment contract – Indefinite contract – Admissibility – Interest in bringing proceedings – Action against a decision which had been rescinded when the action was brought – Absence of a prior complaint)

Application: brought under Article 40(3) of the Convention based on Article K.3 of the Treaty on European Union, on the establishment of a European Police Office (Europol Convention), and Article 93(1) of the Staff Regulations applicable to Europol employees, in which Mr Kipp seeks annulment of the decision of the Director of Europol of 4 October 2007 refusing to renew his contract and to offer him an indefinite contract, of the decision of the Director of Europol of 29 April 2008 rejecting his complaint against the abovementioned decision of 4 October 2007, and of the decision of the Director of Europol of 12 June 2008 once again refusing to renew his contract.

Held: The action is dismissed. The applicant is ordered to pay the costs.

Summary

Officials – Actions – Interest in bringing proceedings – Assessment as at the date on which the action is brought – Contested decision rescinded

A party’s interest in bringing proceedings must exist at the stage of lodging the action, failing which it will be inadmissible. An action for annulment brought against a decision which had been rescinded prior to the date on which the application was registered because a fresh decision had been adopted, following reconsideration, on other grounds and on the basis of other factors than those on which the administration based its first decision is therefore inadmissible. The fresh decision does not constitute a confirmatory decision but, on the contrary, an autonomous decision which replaces the previous decision.

(see paras 36, 37, 39-40)

See:

C-362/05 P Wunenburger v Commission [2007] ECR I‑4333, para. 42

T-49/91 Turner v Commission [1992] ECR II‑1855, paras 24 to 26; T-128/96 Lebedef v Commission [1996] ECR-SC I‑A‑629 and II‑1679, paras 19 and 21; T-68/97 Neumann and Neumann-Schölles v Commission [1999] ECR-SC I‑A‑193 and II‑1005, para. 58; T‑49/97 TAT European Airlines v Commission [2000] ECR II‑51, paras 30 to 36; T-159/98 Torre and Others v Commission [2001] ECR-SC I‑A‑83 and II‑395, para. 28; T-281/03 Liakoura v Council [2004] ECR-SC I‑A‑61 and II‑249, paras 36 to 38; T-272/03 Fernández-Gómez v Commission [2005] ECR-SC I‑A‑229 and II‑1049, paras 36 and 42 to 44

F-28/08 Pouzol v Court of Auditors [2008] ECR-SC I‑A‑1‑0000 and II‑A‑1‑0000, paras 45 to 50
ORDER OF THE EUROPEAN UNION CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL

(First Chamber)

10 September 2014

Michael Kipp

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 Kipp following the judgment in Kipp v Europol (F‑28/09, EU:F:2010:59).

Held:

The total amount of costs to be reimbursed by the European Police Office to Mr Kipp 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
ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE SECOND CHAMBER OF THE CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL

15 June 2010

Case F-51/09

Alessandro Petrilli

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 Petrilli, a former official of the Commission who retired on 1 July 2007, seeks annulment of the decision of the appointing authority of 18 February 2009 rejecting his complaint lodged on 20 October 2008 on the basis of Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union against the decision of the Office for the Administration and Payment of Individual Entitlements of 16 October 2008 refusing to fix Italy as his main place of residence since his retirement and consequently, first, to apply the weighting for Italy to his pension, second, to grant him the resettlement allowance, and third, to double the education allowance he receives for his daughter.

Held: Case F-51/09 Petrilli v Commission is removed from the register of the Tribunal. The Commission is to pay the fixed sum of EUR 5 750 to the applicant, who in return waives all claims, including in relation to costs. The applicant is to bear any remaining costs of his own. 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 CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL

(First Chamber)

26 October 2010

Case F-3/10

AB

v

European Commission

(Civil service — Contract staff — Non-renewal of a fixed-term contract — Complaint out of time — Manifest inadmissibility)

Application: brought under Article 270 TFEU, applicable to the EAEC Treaty pursuant to Article 106a thereof, in which the applicant seeks, principally, annulment of the Commission’s decision refusing to renew his contract as a member of the contract staff.

Held: The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible. The applicant is ordered to pay the costs.

Summary

1. Officials — Actions — Action against a decision rejecting a complaint — Admissibility

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

2. Officials — Actions — Conditions for admissibility — Proper observance of the preliminary administrative procedure

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

1. A claim seeking annulment of a decision rejecting a complaint has the effect of bringing before the Courts of the European Union the act adversely affecting the applicant against which the complaint was submitted.

(see para. 23)

See:

293/87 Vainker v Parliament [1989] ECR 23, para. 8

T-310/02 Theodorakis v Council [2004] ECR-SC I-A-95 and II-427, para. 19; T-80/04 Castets v Commission [2005] ECR-SC I-A-161 and II-729, para. 15

2. 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 against the institution to which he belongs conditional on the proper observance of the preliminary administrative procedure laid down thereunder.

(see para. 24)

See:

16/86 P. v ESC [1987] ECR 2409, para. 6

T-34/91 Whitehead v Commission [1992] ECR II-1723, para. 18
ORDER OF THE CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL

(Second Chamber)

17 March 2011

Case F-107/10

AP

v

Court of Justice of the European Union

(Civil service — Lateness — Manifest inadmissibility)

Application: brought under Article 270 TFEU, applicable to the EAEC Treaty pursuant to Article 106a thereof, in which AP seeks, in particular, annulment of the decision of the Court of Justice of 17 December 2009 recognising his entitlement to the household allowance from 1 July 2009 but granting him that allowance only from 1 November 2009, an order that the institution pay him an amount equivalent to the household allowances for the period from 1 July 2009 to 31 October 2009 plus interest, and, in the alternative, an order that the institution compensate him for his financial and non-material damage.

Held: The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible. The applicant is to bear his own costs.

Summary

Officials — Actions — Prior administrative complaint — Time-limits — Mandatory

(Staff Regulations, Arts 90 and 91; Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal, Art. 100(3))

The periods for lodging complaints and bringing actions referred to in Articles 90 and 91 of the Staff Regulations are matters of public policy and cannot be left to the discretion of the parties or the Court, which must ascertain, of its own motion if need be, whether they have been complied with.

It is for the parties to exercise due care and attention in order to comply with the time-limits laid down by the applicable rules. Consequently, while the applicant is entitled to use the whole period for bringing an action provided for in Article 100(3) of the Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal, that option runs the risk, however, that his action will be ruled inadmissible if the original of the application is lodged with the Tribunal after the time allotted, for reasons which have nothing to do with unforeseeable circumstances or force majeure.

(see paras 5, 9)

See:

29 June 2000, C-154/99 P Politi v European Training Foundation, para. 15; 8 November 2007, C-242/07 P Belgium v Commission, para. 17

15 January 2009, T-306/08 P Braun-Neumann v Parliament, para. 36; 12 October 2009, T-283/09 P Aayhan and Others v Parliament, para. 19

12 May 2010, F-13/09 Peláez Jimeno v Parliament, para. 18
ORDER OF THE CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL

(Second Chamber)

7 July 2011

Case F-21/11

Antonio Gerardo Pirri

v

European Commission

(Civil service – Person claiming the status of official or other member of staff of the European Union – Actions – Manifest inadmissibility – Failure to comply with the pre-litigation procedure)

Application: brought under Article 270 TFEU, applicable to the EAEC Treaty pursuant to Article 106a thereof, in which Mr Pirri, an employee of the Istituto Vigilanza Notturna Gallarate S.r.l., essentially asks the Tribunal to recognise his status as a member of the contract staff of the Commission, and more particularly of the Joint Research Centre (JRC), and, consequently, to order the Commission to pay the remuneration and other financial benefits which he claims are due to him in that capacity, as well as payment of damages for the harm he claims to have suffered.

Held: The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible. The applicant is to bear his own costs.

Summary

Officials – Actions – Conditions for admissibility – Compliance with the prior administrative procedure

(Staff Regulations, Arts 90 and 91)

In the system of remedies laid down by Articles 90 and 91 of the Staff Regulations, first of all, an action before the Civil Service Tribunal must be directed against an act adversely affecting the applicant consisting either in a decision taken by the appointing authority or the authority empowered to conclude contracts of employment, or in the failure of either of those authorities to take a measure required by the Staff Regulations, and secondly, such an action is admissible only if the person concerned has first lodged a complaint against the act adversely affecting him with that authority, in accordance with Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations, and if that complaint has been rejected by express or implied decision. Furthermore, where an official or other staff member, or even a person outside the institution, seeks to secure from the administration the adoption of a decision in relation to him, the prior administrative procedure must begin with a request from the person concerned, in accordance with Article 90(1) of the Staff Regulations, asking the appointing authority or the authority empowered to conclude contracts of employment to adopt the decision he seeks; the rejection of that request may then form the subject of a complaint.

(see para. 12)
ORDER OF THE CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL

(First Chamber)

28 September 2011





Case F-6/11





M

v

European Medicines Agency (EMA)

(Civil service – Action for damages – Action manifestly inadmissible)

Application: brought under Article 270 TFEU, applicable to the EAEC Treaty pursuant to Article 106a thereof, in which M requests that the European Medicines Agency (EMA) be ordered to pay him damages for the loss which he allegedly sustained following an accident at work.

Held: The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible. The applicant is to bear all the costs.

Summary

1. Procedure – Admissibility of actions – Lodging of a plea of inadmissibility – Tribunal’s freedom to adopt an order on the basis of Article 76 of the Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal

(Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal, Art. 76)

2. Officials – Social security – Occupational accident – Fixed-sum compensation under the Staff Regulations – Claim for additional compensation under general law – Lawfulness – Conditions

(Staff Regulations, Arts 73 and 90(1))

1. Even where a plea of inadmissibility has been raised by the defendant in a separate document, the Civil Service Tribunal remains at liberty, if the inadmissibility of the action appears manifest, to adopt an order on the basis of Article 76 of its Rules of Procedure.

(see para. 12)

See:

25 November 2009, F-5/09 Soerensen Ferraresi v Commission, para. 14

2. A staff member who suffers an accident is entitled to seek from the administration additional compensation where he considers that the administration is responsible for the accident under general law and that the staff insurance scheme established by Article 73 of the Staff Regulations does not allow for appropriate compensation. However, in such a case, the administrative procedure which the staff member is required to follow in order to obtain such additional compensation must commence with the submission of a request within the meaning of Article 90(1) of the Staff Regulations seeking to obtain additional compensation, and must be followed, where necessary, by an administrative complaint directed against the decision rejecting the request.

(see para. 14)

See:

8 October 1986, 169/83 and 136/84 Leussink v Commission, para. 13
ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE FIRST CHAMBER OF THE EUROPEAN UNION CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL

28 January 2016

David Schwander

v

European Commission

‛Transfer of pension rights — Judgments of the General Court delivered during the proceedings — Discontinuance by the applicant — Removal from the register — Allocation of costs’

Application:

under Article 270 TFEU, applicable to the EAEC Treaty pursuant to Article 106a thereof, in which Mr Schwander sought, in essence, annulment of the decision of the Office for the Administration and Payment of Individual Entitlements (PMO) of 10 May 2011, by which, first, the proposal for crediting his pension rights, which had been made to him on 22 October 2009 and which he had accepted on 17 December 2009, was withdrawn, and, secondly, a fresh calculation of his accredited pension rights was drawn up under the general implementing provisions for Articles 11 and 12 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union adopted by the European Commission on 3 March 2011.

Held:

Case F‑138/11 is removed from the register of the Tribunal. Each party is to bear its own costs.

Summary

Judicial proceedings — Discontinuance by the applicant — Removal from the register

(Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal, Arts 84 and 103(5))

(see para. 7)
ORDER OF THE EUROPEAN UNION CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL

(Second Chamber)

12 December 2013

Luigi Marcuccio

v

European Commission

‛Civil service — Officials — Non-contractual liability of the European Union — Compensation for the damage resulting from the fact that a letter was sent by the institution to the applicant’s lawyer concerning costs the applicant had been ordered to pay — Action in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded — Article 94 of the Rules of Procedure’

Application:

under Article 270 TFEU, applicable to the EAEC Treaty pursuant to Article 106a thereof, in which Mr Marcuccio seeks, first, annulment of the decision by which the European Commission rejected his request for compensation for the fact that a letter was sent to the lawyer who had represented him before the Courts of the European Union since June 2007 (‘the applicant’s lawyer’ or ‘his lawyer’) concerning payment of the costs relating to 24 cases which have become final in which he was ordered to pay the Commission’s costs and, secondly, that the Commission be ordered to pay him damages.

Held:

The action is dismissed as being in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded. Mr Marcuccio is to bear his own costs and is ordered to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission. Mr Marcuccio is ordered to pay the Tribunal the sum of EUR 2000.

Summary

Actions brought by officials — Action for damages — Application for annulment of the pre-litigation decision rejecting the request for compensation — Application not independent of the claim for damages (Staff Regulations, Art. 91) Judicial proceedings — Legal costs — Costs incurred by the Civil Service Tribunal as a result of an action which is an abuse of process by an official — Order for the official to refund those costs (Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal, Art. 94)
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.

(see paras 43-46, 48)

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 the case-law cited
ORDER OF THE EUROPEAN UNION CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL

(Third Chamber)

15 June 2016

Jonas Poniskaitis

v

European Commission

‛Civil service — Officials — Pensions — Transfer of national pension rights — Proposals concerning additional pensionable years — Act not having an adverse effect — Inadmissibility of the action — Application for a decision not going to the substance of the case — Article 83 of the Rules of Procedure’

Application:

under Article 270 TFEU, applicable to the EAEC Treaty pursuant to Article 106a thereof, in which Mr Jonas Poniskaitis sought annulment of the ‘decisions’ of 26 March 2012, calculating the amounts of his pension rights acquired earlier under two Lithuanian pension schemes to be credited under the European Union pension scheme, and, to the extent necessary, of the decision of the appointing authority of the European Commission of 3 September 2012 rejecting his complaint against the ‘decisions’ adopting those amounts.

Held:

The action is dismissed. Mr Jonas Poniskaitis is to bear his own costs and is ordered to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.

Summary

Actions brought by officials — Act adversely affecting an official — Concept — 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))

A proposal concerning additional pensionable years, notified to an official with a view to a 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. Therefore, such a proposal does not constitute an act having adverse effect for the purposes of Article 91(1) of the Staff Regulations.

(see para. 14)

See:

Judgments of 13 October 2015 in Commission v Verile and Gjergji, T‑104/14 P, EU:T:2015:776, para. 62, and Teughels v Commission, T‑131/14 P, EU:T:2015:778, para. 58