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

(Second Chamber)

1 March 2007

Case F-30/05

Asa Sundholm

v

Commission of the European Communities

(Officials – Appraisal – Career development report – 2003 appraisal – Obligation to state the reasons on which the report is based – Rights of the defence)

Application: brought under Articles 236 EC and 152 EA, in which Ms Sundholm seeks annulment of her career development report for the period from 1 January to 31 December 2003.

Held: The application is dismissed. The parties are ordered to bear their own costs.

Summary

1. Officials – Reports procedure – Less favourable report influencing scope of obligation to state reasons

(Staff Regulations, Art. 43)

2. Officials – Reports procedure – Observance of the rights of the defence

(Staff Regulations, Arts 26, first and second paras, and 43)

3. Officials – Reports procedure – Career development report

(Staff Regulations, Art. 43)

1. The report to be used as a reference for determining whether the report for a particular year is less favourable than previous reports, requiring particular attention to be paid to the statement of reasons, is the periodic report for the previous year, whether or not it has subsequently been annulled.

(see para. 44)

2. Neither the fundamental principle of observance of the rights of the defence nor the first and second paragraphs of Article 26 of the Staff Regulations which give concrete expression to that principle make the fact that a matter may be held against an official in his appraisal report subject to the drawing-up, prior to the procedure leading to the adoption of that report, of a written warning and the communication of that warning to the individual concerned.

That individual is also not justified in claiming that his rights of defence have been infringed because of the failure to comply with internal directives of his institution concerning the obligation on hierarchical superiors to provide regular feedback on officials’ performance during the reference period itself. The requirement to observe the right to a fair hearing, that is to say, to offer an official to whom a decision adversely affecting him is addressed the opportunity to express his views adequately, applies only once the procedure liable to culminate in such a decision has been initiated. Thus, as regards the appraisal of officials, observance of that principle may be enforced only during the appraisal procedure, which necessarily commences after the end of the reference period.

(see paras 74, 76-78)

See:

T-157/04 De Bry v Commission [2005] ECR-SC I-A-199 and II‑901, paras 41, 42 and 45

3. An official cannot reasonably plead, in support of an action directed against a career development report, that unauthorised third parties have had access to that report. Such a fact, even if established, would have no effect on the legality of that document.

(see para. 85)
Staff case summary



Staff case summary

Summary

Officials – Invalidity – Invalidity Committee – Opinions – Obligation to state reasons – Purpose

(Staff Regulations, Arts 25, 53 and 78, first para.)

The provisions relating to the Invalidity Committee are designed to confer upon medical experts the task of definitively appraising all medical questions. Judicial review may not extend to medical appraisals properly so-called, which must be considered definitive, provided that the conditions in which they are made are not irregular. On the other hand, judicial review may extend to questions concerning the proper constitution and functioning of those committees, and also the regularity of the opinions which they issue. From that point of view, the Community judicature has jurisdiction to examine whether the opinion contains a statement of reasons enabling the reader to assess the considerations on which the conclusions which it contains were based and whether it establishes a comprehensible link between its medical findings and the conclusions reached by the committee.

An opinion of an Invalidity Committee which is confined purely and simply to stating its findings and, at the same time, concluding that the official is suffering from total invalidity preventing him from performing his duties manifestly contains no statement of reasons. The mere mention, in the Invalidity Committee’s record, that the official apparently suffered from an anxio-depressive syndrome does not enable the Community judicature to be aware of and to review the considerations on which the conclusions which it contains were based and if it has established a comprehensible link between the medical findings contained in it and the conclusions at which the Committee arrived. An anxio-depressive syndrome may manifest itself in very different ways and to very different degrees and does not mean that the person suffering from it must necessarily be regarded as suffering from total permanent invalidity preventing him from performing the duties corresponding to a post in his function group.

(see paras 64, 65, 67)

See:

277/84 Jänsch v Commission [1987] ECR 4923, para. 15

T-165/89 Plug v Commission [1992] ECR II‑367, para. 75; T-27/98 Nardone v Commission [1999] ECR-SC I‑A‑267 and II‑1293, para. 87
Staff case summary



Staff case summary

Summary

Officials – Pensions – Weighting

(Staff Regulations, Art. 82)

The concept of residence within the meaning of Article 82 of the previous version of the Staff Regulations, which provides for the application to pensions of the weighting fixed for the country in which the recipient proves he has established his residence, refers to the place where the former official has actually established his centre of interests, in other words the place in which the person concerned has established, with the intention that it should be of a lasting character, the permanent or habitual centre of his interests and where he is deemed to incur his expenditure. Furthermore, irrespective of the purely quantitative element of the time spent by the person in a particular country, residence implies not only the actual fact of living in a given place, but also the intention of thereby achieving the continuity which stems from a stable way of life and from the course of normal social relations . This concept of residence is peculiar to the Community civil service and does not necessarily coincide with national meanings of the term.

(see paras 69, 86)

See:

T‑124/01 and T‑320/01 Del Vaglio v Commission [2003] ECR-SC I‑A‑157 and II‑767, paras 70 and the case-law cited therein, 71 and the case-law cited therein, and 72; judgment of 12 September 2005 in T-320/04 Dionyssopoulou v Council , not published in the ECR, para. 39; T-416/04 Kontouli v Council [2006] ECR-SC I‑A‑2‑181 and II‑A‑2‑897, para. 71
JUDGMENT OF THE CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL

(Second Chamber)

19 April 2007

Case F-9/06

Rui Canteiro Lopes

v

Commission of the European Communities

(Officials – Promotion – Consideration of comparative merits – No definitive staff report)

Application: brought under Articles 236 EC and 152 EA, in which Mr Canteiro Lopes seeks annulment of the Commission decision of 4 March 2005 not to add his name to the list of officials judged to be the most deserving and not to promote him to Grade A 4 in the 2000 promotion exercise.

Held: The action is dismissed. The parties are ordered to bear their own costs.

Summary

1. Officials – Reports procedure – Staff report – Drawing up

(Staff Regulations, Arts 2, first para., and 43)

2. Officials – Promotion – Criteria

(Staff Regulations, Art. 45)

1. Where it has not been possible to draw up an official’s staff report under normal procedural conditions because of exceptional circumstances, such as the fact that his assessor and his appeal assessor have left the institution and the directorate-general to which he was posted has been disbanded, it is consistent with the need for continuity in administrative action for the report to be drawn up by the director-general, who, under the terms of the decision adopted by the institution on the exercise of the powers conferred by the Staff Regulations on the appointing authority, has powers not specifically referred to in that decision.

(see para. 56)

2. The assessment of the merits of the officials eligible for promotion is the decisive factor for all promotions, while the appointing authority may take candidates’ age and seniority in grade or service into consideration only as a secondary factor. However, where the merits of the officials eligible for promotion are equal, those additional criteria may rightly constitute a decisive factor in the appointing authority’s choice.

A difference of two points between the analytical assessments of two officials eligible for promotion who also belong to two different directorates-general may not be regarded as sufficiently significant, given the differences in reporting between directorates-general, to prevent other objective criteria relating to the administrative and personal situation of the officials in question from being taken into account as a secondary factor, such as seniority or the fact that they have already been included in the list of the most deserving officials in a previous exercise .

(see paras 63, 67-68)

See:

C-207/99 P Commission v Hamptaux [2000] ECR I‑9485, para. 19

T-280/94 Lopes v Court of Justice [1996] ECR-SC I‑A‑77 and II‑239, para. 138; T-221/96 Manzo-Tafaro v Commission [1998] ECR-SC I‑A‑115 and II‑307, para. 17; of 13 March 2001 in T-116/00 Hørbye-Möller v Commission, not published in the ECR, para. 39; T-163/01 Perez Escanilla v Commission [2002] ECR-SC I‑A‑131 and II‑717, para. 29; T-134/02 Tejada Fernández v Commission [2003] ECR-SC I‑A‑125 and II‑609, para. 42; T-132/03 Casini v Commission [2005] ECR-SC I‑A‑253 and II‑1169, para. 57; T-472/04 Tsarnavas v Commission [2007] ECR-SC I-A-2-000 and II-A-2-000, para. 67
JUDGMENT OF THE CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL (Second Chamber)

5 July 2007

Case F-93/06

Bruno Dethomas

v

Commission of the European Communities

(Civil service – Former member of the temporary staff – Appointment as an official – Amendment of the Staff Regulations of 1 May 2004 – Third paragraph of Article 32 of the Staff Regulations – Classification in step)

Application: brought under Articles 236 EC and 152 EA, in which Mr Dethomas seeks annulment of the Commission’s decision of 11 January 2006 appointing him as a probationary official and assigning him, as Head of the European Commission Delegation to the Kingdom of Morocco, to the Directorate-General ‘External Relations’, in so far as that decision fixes his classification in grade A*14, step 2.

Held: The Commission’s decision of 11 January 2006 is annulled in so far as it classifies the applicant, Head of the European Commission Delegation to the Kingdom of Morocco, in grade A*14, step 2. The Commission is ordered to pay the costs.

Summary

Officials – Recruitment – Classification in step – Additional seniority in step

(Staff Regulations, Arts 29(2) and 32, third para.; Council Regulation No 723/2004)

In the absence of any transitional provision in Regulation No 723/2004 amending the Staff Regulations of Officials and the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants, the third paragraph of Article 32 of the Staff Regulations, the wording of which is clear and unambiguous, remains wholly applicable, after that regulation came into force, to the classification in step of any member of the temporary staff who is appointed an official in the same grade that he occupied previously. He therefore retains the seniority in step acquired in his capacity as a member of the temporary staff.

In that respect, the appointment of a staff member in active employment to a higher post pursuant to Article 29(2) of the Staff Regulations cannot be considered to be an ‘external’ recruitment preventing any account being taken of the years of service which the newly appointed official has accumulated as a member of the temporary staff.

(see paras 49, 58, 62)

See:

F-21/06 Da Silva v Commission [2007] ECR-SC I-A-1-000 and II-A-I-000, para. 75
JUDGMENT OF THE CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL

(Second Chamber)

13 December 2007

Case F-42/06

Asa Sundholm

v

Commission of the European Communities

(Civil service – Officials – Appraisal – Career development report – 2004 appraisal – Objectives of and criteria for appraisal – Damages)

Application: brought under Articles 236 EC and 152 EA, in which Mrs Sundholm seeks in particular annulment of her career development report for the period from 1 January to 31 December 2004, and an order that the Commission pay her the sum of one euro in compensation for the non-material harm she alleges that career development report to have caused her.

Held: The applicant’s career development report for the period from 1 January to 31 December 2004 is annulled. The remainder of the action is dismissed. The Commission is ordered to pay the costs.

Summary

1. Officials – Reports procedure – Career development report

(Staff Regulations, Art. 43)

2. Officials – Actions – Action for damages – Annulment of the illegal act in dispute – Whether appropriate reparation for non-material damage

(Staff Regulations, Art. 91)

1. It is clear from the fourth subparagraph of Article 8(5) of the General Provisions for Implementing Article 43 of the Staff Regulations, adopted by the Commission, that the administration has a duty to set goals and assessment criteria for the holder of the post. Under that provision, the formal interview that is held between the reporting officer and the holder of the post at the start of each appraisal procedure should cover not just the appraisal of that person’s performance during the reference period, which runs from 1 January to 31 December of the year preceding that in which the procedure is conducted, but also the setting of targets for the year following the reference period, those targets constituting the reference basis for assessing his efficiency. That duty is reiterated in the guide to appraisal which the Commission has adopted as a code of conduct.

Where no goals or assessment criteria have been set for the reference period in question, the administration cannot claim that the goals assigned for the previous reference period were extended on the ground that they did not include any date when they would cease to be valid.

(see paras 31-32, 37)

See:

190/82 Blomefield v Commission [1983] ECR 3981, para. 20

T-63/89 Latham v Commission [1991] ECR II‑19, para. 25; T‑269/01 Tatti v Commission [2003] ECR-SC I‑A‑225 and II‑1093, para. 43

2. The annulment of an act of the administration which has been challenged by an official in itself constitutes appropriate and, in principle (that is to say, in the absence from that act of any expressly negative assessment of the applicant’s abilities likely to cause him damage), sufficient reparation for any non-material harm which the applicant may have suffered by reason of the annulled act.

(see para. 44)

See:

T-60/94 Pierrat v Court of Justice [1995] ECR-SC I‑A‑23 and II‑77, para. 62
JUDGMENT OF THE CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL (Second Chamber)

11 December 2008

Case F-83/06

Arno Schell

v

Commission of the European Communities

(Civil service – Officials – Promotion – Priority points – General implementing provisions for Article 45 of the Staff Regulations)

Application: brought under Articles 236 EC and 152 EA, in which Mr Schell seeks, primarily, annulment of the lists of officials promoted to grade B*8 in the 2004 and 2005 promotion years, in so far as those lists do not contain his name, together with the measures paving the way for those decisions, and, in the alternative, annulment of the decisions fixing the total number of promotion points in the 2004 and 2005 promotion years.

Held: The action is dismissed. Each party is to bear its own costs.

Summary

Officials – Actions – Prior administrative complaint – Promotion system established by the Commission – Complaint against the list of officials promoted and against the determination of the points allocated to officials – Decision to reject – Statement of reasons

(Staff Regulations, Arts 25, second para., 45 and 90(2))

Under the promotion system established by an internal regulation of the Commission, in which the promotion exercise culminates in an act comprising two separate decisions by the appointing authority, the one adopting the list of promoted officials and the other fixing the total number of points of officials, neither of those two decisions is supposed to include a statement of reasons. The obligation to state reasons is satisfied where the appointing authority states reasons for its decision rejecting a complaint against those decisions lodged under Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations.

In that respect, since promotion is by selection, the appointing authority is not required to disclose to the unsuccessful candidate details of its comparison of his merits and those of the candidate who is promoted. Consequently, it is enough to satisfy the obligation to state reasons that the reply to the complaint mentions how the conditions governing promotion laid down by law and the Staff Regulations have been applied in the official’s individual situation.

(see paras 89, 91)

See:

C-343/87 Culin v Commission [1990] ECR I‑225, para. 13

T-11/91 Schloh v Council [1992] ECR II‑203, paras 73, 85 and 86; T-6/96 Contargyris v Council [1997] ECR-SC I‑A‑119 and II‑357, paras 147 and 148; T-230/99 McAuley v Council [2001] ECR-SC I‑A‑127 and II‑583, paras 50 to 52; T-218/02 Napoli Buzzanca v Commission [2005] ECR-SC I‑A‑267 and II‑1221, para. 59; T‑311/04 Buendía Sierra v Commission [2006] ECR II‑4137, para. 147
Staff case summary



Staff case summary

Summary

1. Officials – Members of the temporary staff – Severance grant – Links with retirement pension rights

(Staff Regulations, Annex VIII, Arts 11(1) and 12)

2. Officials – Members of the temporary staff – Severance grant – Calculation

1. Although the severance grant does not, as such, have the nature of a retirement pension, it is clear from Article 12 of Annex VIII to the old Staff Regulations that the severance grant is intended for officials or other staff members who have acquired, as a result of monthly contributions deducted from their salary, the nucleus of a retirement pension entitlement, but who cannot either actually be paid a Community retirement pension because they have fewer than 10 years’ service, or benefit from the provisions of Article 11(1) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations in the version in force until 30 April 2004. Furthermore, a sum paid pursuant to Article 12(b) of Annex VIII to that version of the Staff Regulations, which constitutes one of the two components of the severance grant for temporary staff, is calculated on the basis of the amount of the sums deducted from the basic salary of those staff in respect of contributions for the constitution of their pension, plus compound interest at the rate of 3.5% per annum. It cannot therefore be accepted that the severance grant has no connection at all with retirement pension rights.

(see paras 51-56)

2. The mere fact that the severance grant is paid, by way of compensation, to staff who have acquired the nucleus of a retirement pension entitlement but cannot actually be paid a retirement pension does not necessarily mean that the amount of that grant must correspond to the actuarial equivalent of their nucleus of a retirement pension entitlement.

(see para. 60)
JUDGMENT OF THE CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL

(Second Chamber)

18 June 2009

Case F-43/08

David Spee

v

European Police Office (Europol)

(Civil service – Europol staff – Vacant post – Selection procedure)

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 Spee seeks annulment of the decision of the Director of Europol of 7 January 2008 rejecting his complaint and of the underlying decisions of 20 June 2007 and 6 July 2007 concerning the re-opening of a selection procedure to fill a First Officer’s post declared vacant on 25 July 2006.

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

Summary

Officials – Europol staff – Recruitment – Candidate chosen by the selection committee not satisfying the criteria set out in the notice of vacancy

Although the Director of the European Police Office (Europol) does not have the power, under the principle of the independence of selection boards in competitions, to annul or amend a decision of a selection board, he is, however, required to eliminate any candidate who does not satisfy the criteria set out in the notice of vacancy, since the administration is bound by each of the criteria it has laid down in that notice. The Director cannot therefore be bound by decisions of the selection board the unlawfulness of which would be liable as a consequence to vitiate his own decisions. Consequently, the Director may decide, having been apprised that a selected candidate did not satisfy the requirements in a notice of vacancy, to initiate a fresh selection procedure.

(see paras 45, 46, 48)

See:

142/85 Schwiering v Court of Auditors [1986] ECR 3177, paras 19 to 21; 322/85 and 323/85 Hoyer and Neumann v Court of Auditors [1986] ECR 3215, paras 12 to 14; C-35/92 P Parliament v Frederiksen [1993] ECR I‑991, paras 15 and 16

T-153/95 Kaps v Court of Justice [1996] ECR-SC I‑A‑233 and II‑663, para. 78; T-143/98 Cendrowicz v Commission [1999] ECR‑SC I‑A‑273 and II‑1341, para. 39; T-45/04 Tzirani v Commission [2006] ECR-SC I‑A‑2‑145 and II‑A‑2‑681, para. 46
JUDGMENT OF THE EUROPEAN UNION CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL

(First Chamber)

18 September 2012

Case F‑58/10

Timo Allgeier

v

European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA)

(Civil service — Duty of assistance — Article 24 of the Staff Regulations — Psychological harassment — Administrative inquiry)

Application: brought under Article 270 TFEU, applicable to the EAEC Treaty by virtue of Article 106a thereof, in which Mr Allgeier seeks, inter alia, annulment of the decision of the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (‘the FRA’ or ‘the Agency’) rejecting his request for assistance, and an order that the FRA pay him damages.

Held: The decision is annulled. The FRA is to pay the applicant the sum of EUR 5 000. It is to bear its own costs and those incurred by the applicant.

Summary

Officials — Obligation of administration to provide assistance — Compliance with that obligation in respect of psychological harassment — Making a request for assistance — Inquiry within an agency — Investigator being the chairman of the board of an institute having an important business relationship with that agency — Objective impartiality — None

(Staff Regulations, Art. 24)

In the context of an administrative inquiry in connection with a request for assistance, submitted in respect of alleged psychological harassment, the investigator does not fulfil the necessary conditions for his impartiality to be beyond reproach where an important business relationship exists between the institute of which he is chairman of the board and the agency within which he conducts the inquiry. The individuals concerned in that inquiry may have legitimate fears that the investigator, seeking to maintain that business relationship, may be guided by the aim of protecting the reputation of that agency.

(see paras 62, 64)