ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Staff case summary



Staff case summary

Summary

Procedure – Admissibility of pleadings – Assessment at the time when the pleading is submitted

(Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 114; Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal, Art. 78)

Where a plea of inadmissibility relates to an application lodged at the Registry of the Civil Service Tribunal before the date of entry into force of its own Rules of Procedure, the procedural rules referred to in Article 78 of the Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal, in particular that laid down by paragraph 3 of that article, which empowers the Tribunal to decide by way of order not going to the substance of the case, together with the rules on admissibility of the application to which Article 114 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance referred, applicable mutatis mutandis to the Tribunal pending the entry into force of its Rules of Procedure, must be applied.

As the time allowed for submitting a plea of inadmissibility begins to run, whether under Article 114 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance or under Article 78 of the Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal, from the service of the application, where such service was effected before the entry into force of the Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal, the period to be observed is necessarily that which was then in force, laid down by the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance. Thus, in accordance with the principle of legal certainty, the entry into force of the Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal could not have the effect in law of reducing the period, which had already begun to run on the date when they came into force, for the lodging of a plea by separate document.

The relevant date for verifying observance of the prescribed period is the date on which the plea of inadmissibility is lodged with the Civil Service Tribunal, and not that of service of that plea on the applicant.

(see paras 23, 25, 26)

See:

T-47/92 Lenz v Commission [1992] ECR II‑2523, para. 34

F-16/05 Falcione v Commission [2006] ECR-SC I‑A‑1‑3 and II‑A‑1‑7, para. 84; F-82/06 Duyster v Commission [2007] ECR-SC I‑A-1-0000 and II-A-1-0000, para. 40; F-80/06 Duyster v Commission [2008] ECR-SC I‑A-1-0000 and II-A-1-0000, paras 38 to 43
Staff case summary



Staff case summary

Summary

1. Officials – Actions – Act adversely affecting an official – Definition – Explicit rejection of a request notified after the implicit rejection decision became definitive – Confirmatory measure

(Staff Regulations, Arts 90 and 91)

2. Procedure – Costs – Set-off – Exceptional grounds

(Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 87(3), first subpara.; Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal, Art. 122)

1. An explicit decision rejecting a request which has been notified to the official concerned after the implicit rejection decision has become definitive merely constitutes a purely confirmatory measure of the latter decision and cannot therefore be regarded as an act having an adverse effect which can be the subject, under Article 91(1) of the Staff Regulations, of an action for annulment.

(see para. 27)

2. Under the first subparagraph of Article 87(3) of the Rules of the Procedure of the Court of First Instance, applicable mutatis mutandis to cases pending before the Civil Service Tribunal prior to the entry into force of its own Rules of Procedure on 1 November 2007, where the circumstances are exceptional, the Civil Service Tribunal may order that the costs be shared.

The fact that, in an appeal that was rejected because the prior complaint was submitted late, the administration did not inform the official concerned that the decision that was the subject of his complaint was merely a purely confirmatory measure whose annulment could not be sought, and that the administration also failed to mention that the complaint might be late, thus infringing its duty to have regard for his welfare by possibly giving the official the mistaken impression that if he intended to bring an action it would be admissible, constitutes an exceptional circumstance justifying a sharing between the institution in question and the official who is the applicant of the costs incurred by the latter for the purposes of the proceedings.

(see paras 35-39)
ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE FIRST CHAMBER OF THE CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL

23 January 2008

Case F-123/07

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 annulment of her 2005 career development report and an order for the Commission to pay her damages for non-material loss suffered as a result of the delay in drawing up that report and the repetition of assessments contained in the report, which were not an accurate reflection of her actual performance.

Held: Case F‑123/07 De Fays v Commission is removed from the register of the Tribunal. 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 CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL

(Second Chamber)

17 September 2009

Case F-132/07

Guido Strack

v

Commission of the European Communities

(Civil service – Procedural issues – Objection of inadmissibility – Procedure by default)

Application: brought under Articles 236 EC and 152 EA, in which the Commission, in the context of the action brought by Mr Strack on 22 October 2007, raised in a separate document an objection of inadmissibility against that action under Article 78 of the Rules of Procedure.

Held: The Commission’s application for a ruling on the inadmissibility of the action is admissible. The applicant’s request for a ruling by default is dismissed. The decision on the Commission’s application for a ruling on the inadmissibility of the action is reserved for the final judgment. Costs are reserved.

Summary

Procedure – Admissibility of procedural documents – Submission of an objection of inadmissibility after obtaining an extension of the period for lodging the defence – Admissibility

(Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal, Arts 39 and 78)

Where the Civil Service Tribunal has accepted a request from a defendant to extend the period for lodging the defence, the fact that the defendant chose, before the end of that extended period, to raise an objection of inadmissibility under Article 78 of the Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal, instead of lodging a defence containing an in-depth analysis of the case, does not put in question whether its request for an extension was in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Rules of Procedure or lead to the conclusion that that request was unlawful.

In granting an extension to the period for lodging the defence before the end of the period laid down in Article 78 of the Rules of Procedure for submitting an objection of inadmissibility, the Civil Service Tribunal has implicitly agreed that, within the extended period allowed, the defendant may lodge an objection of inadmissibility in a separate document or a defence. In that respect, while it is true that no express provision is made for the possibility of extending the period laid down in Article 78, it may not be inferred, in so far as the period was extended before it expired, that a party may not lodge an objection of inadmissibility in a separate document before the end of the extended period.

(see paras 10, 12)

See:

T-387/00 Comitato organizzatore del convegno internazionale v Commission [2002] ECR II‑3031, para. 35
ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE

CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL

3 July 2008

Case F-52/08 R

Wolfgang Plasa

v

Commission of the European Communities

(Civil service – Application for interim relief – Application for the suspension of operation of a decision to reassign – Urgency – None)

Application: brought under Articles 242 EC, 243 EC, 157 EA and 158 EA, in which Mr Plasa seeks suspension of the decision of 8 May 2008 by which the Commission reassigns him to Brussels (Belgium), in the interest of the service, from 1 August 2008.

Held: The application for interim measures is dismissed. Costs are reserved.

Summary

Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Conditions for granting – Serious and irreparable damage

(Art. 242 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal, Art. 102(2))

The purpose of interim proceedings is not to secure reparation of damage but to guarantee the full effectiveness of the judgment on the substance. In order that the latter objective may be attained, the measures sought must be urgent in the sense that, in order to avoid serious and irreparable damage to the applicant’s interests, they must be ordered and become effective even before the decision in the main proceedings. It is for the party applying for the grant of interim measures to adduce proof that it cannot await the outcome of the main action without suffering serious and irreparable damage of that kind.

In that respect, the fact that an official may not have been given an assignment which corresponds to his professional aspirations does not cause him damage. Assignments are decided by the appointing authority in the interests of the service, and officials do not have a subjective right to be assigned to a particular post. An official is only entitled to a post which corresponds to his grade.

(see paras 34-35)

See:

C-65/99 P(R) Willeme v Commission [1999] ECR I‑1857, para 62

T-173/99 R Elkaïm and Mazuel v Commission [1999] ECR-SC I‑A‑155 and II‑811, para. 25; T-320/02 R Esch-Leonhardt and Others v ECB [2002] ECR-SC I‑A‑325 and II‑1555, para. 27
ORDER OF THE CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL

(First Chamber)

7 October 2009

Case F-3/08

Luigi Marcuccio

v

Commission of the European Communities

(Civil service – Officials – Refusal of an institution to translate a decision – Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law – Article 94 of the Rules of Procedure)

Application: brought under Articles 236 EC and 152 EA, in which Mr Marcuccio seeks annulment of the Commission’s decision refusing to send him an Italian translation of a previous decision, as well as an order that the Commission pay him damages.

Held: The applicant’s action is dismissed as manifestly lacking any foundation in law. The applicant is ordered to pay the costs. The applicant is ordered to pay the Tribunal the sum of EUR 1 000.

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 29-33)

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
ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE THIRD CHAMBER OF THE CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL

4 June 2009

Case F-78/08

Carlo Locchi

v

Commission of the European Communities

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

Application: brought under Articles 236 EC and 152 EA, in which Mr Locchi essentially seeks annulment of the Commission’s decision of 15 February 2008 to exclude him from the final list of officials pre-selected for the certification procedure 2007 and, consequently, still relating to the certification procedure 2007, from the list of candidates pre-selected with the best marks and from the list of applicants admitted to the training programme, as well as annulment of the Commission’s decision of 20 November 2007 concerning the general provisions implementing Article 45a of the Staff Regulations.

Held: Case F‑78/08 Locchi v Commission is removed from the register of the Tribunal. The Commission is to pay the fixed sum of EUR 4 000 to the applicant, who in return waives all claims, including in relation to costs.

Summary

Officials – Actions – Amicable settlement 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 SECOND CHAMBER OF THE CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL

5 May 2010

Case F-94/09

Vladimir Nikolchov

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 Nikolchov, a member of the contract staff of the Commission from 1 October 2008 to 15 January 2009, then an official at the same institution from 16 January 2009, essentially seeks annulment of the Commission’s decision of 29 July 2009 refusing, upon his second entry into service, to grant him the daily allowance provided for in Article 10(2) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union.

Held: Case F-94/09 Nikolchov v Commission is removed from the register of the Tribunal. Notice is given that the applicant has withdrawn his action, including in relation to costs. The Commission is to pay the applicant a fixed sum of EUR 2 500 towards his costs. The applicant is to bear the remainder of his costs. 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 EUROPEAN UNION CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL

(First Chamber)

10 September 2014

Brigitte Knöll

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 Knöll following the judgment in Knöll v Europol (F‑44/09, EU:F:2010:68).

Held:

The total amount of costs to be reimbursed by the European Police Office to Ms Knöll 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 SECOND CHAMBER

OF THE CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL

11 March 2011

Case F-24/10

Loukas Kaskarelis

v

European Commission

(Amicable settlement on the initiative of the Tribunal — Removal from the register)

Application: brought under Article 270 TFEU, applicable to the EAEC Treaty pursuant to Article 106a thereof, in which Mr Kaskarelis essentially seeks annulment of the Commission’s decision refusing to grant him an expatriation allowance and an installation allowance, and reimbursement of travel expenses upon entering the service.

Held: Case F-24/10 Kaskarelis v Commission is removed from the register of the Tribunal. The Commission is ordered to pay the applicant an installation allowance. Notice is given that, subject to presentation of the evidence normally required, the Commission is to pay the applicant daily allowances and to reimburse his travel expenses upon entering the service, as well as his removal costs. Notice is given that the parties recognise that neither the present amicable settlement nor the positions they adopted in the pre-litigation procedure, during the proceedings before the Tribunal or in complying with the present amicable settlement may prejudge any future decision on the applicant’s expatriation allowance if he is appointed as an official. The Commission is ordered to pay, in addition to its own costs, two thirds of the costs incurred by the applicant. The applicant is ordered to bear one third of his own costs.

Summary

Officials — Actions — Amicable settlement 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 FIRST CHAMBER OF THE CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL

8 December 2010

Case F-79/10

Charles Dubus

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 Dubus seeks annulment of the Commission’s decision of 20 November 2009 not to include him in the list of officials promoted to grade AST 4 under the 2009 promotion exercise.

Held: Case F-79/10 Dubus v Commission is removed from the register of the Tribunal. 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)
ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE FIRST CHAMBER

OF THE CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL

3 March 2011

Case F-86/10

Charles Dubus

v

European Parliament

(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 Dubus seeks annulment of the Parliament’s decision, published on 2 December 2009, not to include him in the list of officials promoted to grade AST 4 for the 2009 promotions year.

Held: Case F-86/10 Dubus v Parliament is removed from the register of the Tribunal. 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)
ORDER OF THE CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL (First Chamber)

6 October 2010

Case F-2/10

Luigi Marcuccio

v

European Commission

(Civil service — Officials — Social security — Sickness insurance — Applications for payment of medical expenses — No act adversely affecting an official — Action manifestly inadmissible and manifestly lacking any foundation in law — Article 94 of the Rules of Procedure)

Application: brought under Article 270 TFEU, applicable to the EAEC Treaty pursuant to Article 106a thereof, in which Mr Marcuccio seeks in particular, first, annulment of the Commission’s decision rejecting his request of 17 March 2009 for 100% reimbursement of all the medical expenses he had incurred as a result of the accident he suffered on 29 October 2001, second, annulment of the Commission’s decision of 22 September 2009 rejecting his complaint against the decision rejecting his request of 17 March 2009, third, an order that the Commission pay him the difference between the medical expenses paid by him between 1 December 2000 and 17 March 2009 and the amounts reimbursed to him in that respect, or any other amount which the Tribunal may consider just and equitable in the present case, plus interest at 10% per year, with annual capitalisation.

Held: The action is dismissed, in part as manifestly inadmissible and in part as manifestly lacking any foundation. The applicant is ordered to pay the costs. The applicant is ordered to pay the Tribunal the sum of EUR 1 500.

Summary

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

(Staff Regulations, Arts 90 and 91)

2. Officials — Actions — Act adversely affecting an official — Definition — Holding response from the administration at an official’s request — Not included

(Staff Regulations, Arts 90 and 91)

1. Where, in addition to the annulment of a contested decision, an official also seeks, in so far as is necessary, the annulment of the decision rejecting his complaint, the latter claims are, as such, lacking in independent content and are, in reality, indissociable from the claims against the contested decision.

(see para. 26)

See:

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

T-330/03 Liakoura v Council [2004] ECR-SC I-A-191 and II-859, para. 13

F-34/07 Skareby v Commission [2008] ECR-SC I-A-1-477 and II-A-1-2637, para. 27

2. An act adversely affecting an official is one which produces binding legal effects capable of directly and immediately affecting the applicant’s interests by bringing about a distinct change in his legal position; such an act must come from the competent authority and include a definitive position adopted by the administration.

That is not true of a letter from the institution agreeing to part of an official’s request, explaining certain points in response to his request and informing him that his request is being considered.

(see paras 29, 32-34)

See:

F-101/05 Grünheid v Commission [2006] ECR-SC I-A-1-55 and II-A-1-199, para. 33 and the case-law cited therein