ORDER OF THE EUROPEAN UNION CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL

(Second Chamber)

11 December 2014

Hariklia Iliopoulou

v

European Police Office (Europol)

‛Civil service — Europol staff — Europol Convention — Europol Staff Regulations — Decision 2009/371/JHA — Application of the Conditions of Employment to Europol staff — Non-renewal of a fixed-term temporary contract — Refusal to grant a temporary contract for an indefinite period’

Application:

under Article 270 TFEU, in which Ms Iliopoulou seeks, in essence, annulment of the decision of 13 May 2013 by which the European Police Office (Europol) refused to renew, for an indefinite duration, her fixed-term temporary contract which expired on 31 October 2013.

Held:

The application is dismissed. The European Police Office is to bear its own costs and is ordered to pay half of the costs incurred by Ms Iliopoulou. Ms Iliopoulou is to bear half of her own costs.

Summary

Judicial proceedings — Costs — To whom chargeable — Taking into account of requirements of fairness — Order for the successful party to pay the costs

(Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal, Art. 102(2); Staff Regulations, Art. 90(1))

Under Article 102(2) of its Rules of Procedure, the Civil Service Tribunal may order the successful party to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the other party if this appears justified by its conduct, including before the proceedings were brought. In that regard, ordering the institution to pay the costs may be justified by lack of due diligence in the pre-litigation procedure. That is the case where the institution allows the period of four months laid down in Article 90(1) of the Staff Regulations to elapse without adopting an express decision rejecting the complaint lodged by the person concerned, and where it does not even adopt such a decision in the following three months, and where it is possible that if the institution had adopted such a decision the applicant would not have brought the action.

(see paras 80, 82)

See:

Order in Coedo Suárez v Council, F‑73/10, EU:F:2011:102, para. 47

ORDER OF THE EUROPEAN UNION CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL

(Second Chamber)

11 December 2014

Hariklia Iliopoulou

v

European Police Office (Europol)

‛Civil service — Europol staff — Europol Convention — Europol Staff Regulations — Decision 2009/371/JHA — Application of the Conditions of Employment to Europol staff — Non-renewal of a fixed-term temporary contract — Refusal to grant a temporary contract for an indefinite period’

Application:

under Article 270 TFEU, in which Ms Iliopoulou seeks, in essence, annulment of the decision of 13 May 2013 by which the European Police Office (Europol) refused to renew, for an indefinite duration, her fixed-term temporary contract which expired on 31 October 2013.

Held:

The application is dismissed. The European Police Office is to bear its own costs and is ordered to pay half of the costs incurred by Ms Iliopoulou. Ms Iliopoulou is to bear half of her own costs.

Summary

Judicial proceedings — Costs — To whom chargeable — Taking into account of requirements of fairness — Order for the successful party to pay the costs

(Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal, Art. 102(2); Staff Regulations, Art. 90(1))

Under Article 102(2) of its Rules of Procedure, the Civil Service Tribunal may order the successful party to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the other party if this appears justified by its conduct, including before the proceedings were brought. In that regard, ordering the institution to pay the costs may be justified by lack of due diligence in the pre-litigation procedure. That is the case where the institution allows the period of four months laid down in Article 90(1) of the Staff Regulations to elapse without adopting an express decision rejecting the complaint lodged by the person concerned, and where it does not even adopt such a decision in the following three months, and where it is possible that if the institution had adopted such a decision the applicant would not have brought the action.

(see paras 80, 82)

See:

Order in Coedo Suárez v Council, F‑73/10, EU:F:2011:102, para. 47