ORDER OF THE EUROPEAN UNION CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL

(Third Chamber)

13 September 2012

Case F‑34/11

Saskia Jane Markland

v

European Police Office (Europol)

(Civil service — Europol staff — Temporary staff contract — Application of the CEOS — Grading — Action manifestly unfounded)

Application: brought under Article 270 TFEU, applicable to the EAEC Treaty by virtue of Article 106a thereof, in which Ms Markland seeks annulment of the decision of 19 December 2010 by which the European Police Office (Europol) upheld its decision to classify her in assistants’ function group (AST) at grade AST 5.

Held: The action is dismissed as manifestly unfounded. The applicant is to bear her own costs and those incurred by Europol.

Summary

1. Officials — Staff members of Europol — Recruitment — Grading — Obligation to define the duties and powers covering each type of task of temporary staff members — Infringement — Consequences with regard to a decision on the classification of a temporary staff member — None

(Staff Regulations, Arts 1a(2) and 5(4); Annex I; Conditions of Employment of Other Servants, Art. 10; Council Decision 2009/371, Art. 39(2))

2. Officials — Recruitment — Grading — Internal directive of an institution — Definition — Multi-annual plan sent to the budgetary authority of the European Union for information and not intended for staff — Not included

3. Officials — Organisation of departments — Fixing of the level of a post to be filled — Obligation to fix the specific grade in the vacancy notice — None

(Staff Regulations)

1. The obligation on each institution of the European Union, laid down in Article 5(4) of the Staff Regulations, to define, after consulting the Staff Regulations Committee, the duties and powers attaching to each type of post listed in Annex I to the Staff Regulations is also incumbent on Europol. That body is an agency, within the meaning of Article 1a(2) of the Staff Regulations, pursuant to Article 39(2) of Decision 2009/371 establishing Europol; Article 1a(2) of the Staff Regulations states that any references to institutions in the Staff Regulations are to apply to agencies.

The fact that Europol failed to define the duties and powers as required by Article 5(4) of the Staff Regulations does not make a decision determining the classification of a temporary staff member unlawful, since the purpose of such definition, being a purely internal measure, is only to facilitate such classification.

(see paras 35-36, 39-40)

See:

9 July 2007, T‑415/06 P De Smedt v Commission, paras 42 and 43

28 June 2011, F‑55/10 AS v Commission, para. 59, under appeal to the General Court, Case T‑476/11 P

2. The appointing authority may adopt an internal directive to guide it in exercising its discretion with regard to grading. However, a multiannual plan, sent to the budgetary authority of the European Union for information and not intended for staff, cannot be classed as an internal directive.

(see para. 46)

See:

9 July 1997, T‑92/96 Monaco v Parliament, para. 46

3. Since the Staff Regulations do not establish a fixed correspondence between a particular function and a particular grade, the administration may properly exercise its broad discretion by determining, in a notice of vacancy — or a notice of selection — the level of a post by reference to a wide range of grades.

(see para. 50)

See:

18 June 2009, T‑572/08 P Commission v Traore, paras 61 to 63