ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
10

Article 5 of the GIP for Article 45, relating to the promotion procedure, provides: ‘... 3. Within each Directorate-General, the Directors shall consult the reporting officer referred to in the general provisions for implementing Article 43 of the Staff Regulations. 4. In each Directorate-General, following the consultation under paragraph 3 above, the Director-General, Deputy Directors-General, Directors and, where appropriate, the Principal Advisers, shall proceed with the examination of the comparative merits of the officials eligible for promotion. ... 5. Following the examination in paragraph 4 above, the Director-General shall hold a discussion with a delegation appointed by the Central Staff Committee. 6. Following the discussion in paragraph 5 above, the Director-General shall communicate to all the Directorate-General’s staff the list of the officials he or she wishes to propose for promotion and shall forward this list to the Joint Promotion Committee referred to in Annex I [to the GIP for Article 45]. 7. The jobholder shall have five working days from the date of publication of this list in which to lodge a complaint with the [JPC] against the fact that he or she is not on the list, with supporting arguments. On receipt of the lists referred to in paragraph 6, the [JPC], taking into account any complaints it has received, shall compare the merits of the officials eligible for promotion and present for the attention of the appointing authority the list of officials it recommends for promotion. At the same time, it shall forward the complaints and the discrepancies, if any, referred to in Annex III [to the GIP for Article 45]. 8. Once it has received the information referred to in paragraph 7 above, and has at its disposal the files of all the officials eligible for promotion, the appointing authority shall carry out a final comparison of the merits of the eligible officials and, taking into account the budgetary resources available, shall adopt the list of officials promoted. ... 9. The list of officials promoted shall be published for the attention of all Commission Staff … by means of an [Administrative Notice]. Each official shall be invited to consult his/her promotion file. 10. ... 11. Publication of the list of officials promoted referred to in paragraph 9 constitutes communication of the decision within the meaning of Article 25 of the Staff Regulations. ... 12. ...’
Staff case summary



Staff case summary

Summary

Officials – Actions – Interest in bringing proceedings

(Staff Regulations, Arts 90 and 91)

An official is not entitled to act in the interests of the law or of the institutions and may put forward, in support of an action for the annulment of a measure, only such claims as relate to him personally. An action brought by an official seeking annulment of the list of officials promoted to the higher grade in a promotion procedure because that list does not contain the applicant’s name is therefore inadmissible where the applicant has not shown why he has a personal interest in bringing the action, and has merely relied on the unlawfulness of certain categories of promotion points, without providing in his written submissions any specific information about his personal situation with regard to the promotion year in question, such as, in particular, the number of promotion points that he received in those categories. Such a finding cannot be called into question by the fact that the number of those promotion points is apparent from documents attached to the defence, since it is for the applicant to establish, in his written submissions, that he has an interest in bringing proceedings and, if appropriate, to refer to the corresponding evidence provided in an annex.

(see paras 31-32)

See:

85/82 Schloh v Council [1983] ECR 2105, para. 14

T-436/04 Sanchez Ferriz v Commission [2006] ECR-SC I‑A‑2‑273 and II‑A‑2‑1423, para. 35; judgment of 23 November 2006 in T-422/04 Lavagnoli v Commission , not published in the ECR
ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE SECOND CHAMBER OF THE CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL

24 May 2007

Case F-95/05 AJ

N

v

Commission of the European Communities

(Legal aid)

Application: in which N seeks legal aid under Article 94 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, applicable mutatis mutandis to the Civil Service Tribunal pursuant to Article 3(4) of Council Decision 2004/752/EC, Euratom of 2 November 2004 establishing the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (OJ 2004 L 333, p. 7), until the entry into force of its rules of procedure.

Held: N is granted legal aid. A sum corresponding to the costs incurred by N from the date when the application for legal aid was submitted is to be paid to the lawyer assisting the applicant, on the basis of supporting documents and up to a maximum of EUR 2000. Ms I. Kletzlen is appointed as the lawyer representing N.

Summary

Procedure – Application for legal aid – Costs covered

(Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Arts 94 and 95; Council Decision 2004/752, Art. 3(4))

It is apparent from Articles 94 and 95 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance that legal aid must, in principle, be reserved for the payment of official costs incurred either when an application for aid is submitted or thereafter. Unless there are special circumstances, it would neither be consistent with the letter and spirit of those articles nor would it be in the interest of the sound administration of justice for costs incurred before that date to be paid retroactively through legal aid. Where costs have been incurred before the application for aid was submitted, the presumption is, until proved to the contrary, that the applicant was able to pay them and that one of the conditions for granting legal aid is therefore not met.

(see para. 16)

See:

order of 3 April 2006 in Case T-49/04 AJ Hassan v Council and Commission, not published in the ECR; order of 27 October 2006 in Case T-318/01 AJ Othman v Council and Commission, not published in the ECR
ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE FIRST CHAMBER OF THE CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL

25 May 2007

Case F-92/06

Magdalena Antas

v

Council of the European Union

(Amicable settlement reached at an informal meeting – Removal from the register)

Application: brought under Articles 236 EC and 152 EA, in which Ms Antas seeks annulment of the Council’s decision of 9 September 2005 rejecting her claim for compensation, an order for the Council to compensate her for the loss she allegedly suffered as a result of her late affiliation to the Belgian social security scheme and other wrongful acts of the institution, and a request for the parties to agree quickly on the amount of compensation due.

Held: Case F‑92/06 Antas v Council is removed from the register of the Tribunal. The decision as to costs is as agreed between the parties.

Summary

Officials – Actions – Amicable settlement of dispute before the Civil Service Tribunal – Removal from the register

(Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 87(5), second para., and Art. 98, first para.; Council Decision 2004/752, Art. 3(4))
ORDER OF THE CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL

(First Chamber)

4 November 2008

Case F-133/06

Luigi Marcuccio

v

Commission of the European Communities

(Civil service – Officials – Application for the restitution of personal property – Decision rejecting the complaint drafted in a language other than the official’s native language – Action out of time – Manifest inadmissibility)

Application: brought under Articles 236 EC and 152 EA, in which Mr Marcuccio seeks, first, annulment of the Commission decision rejecting his application to have delivered to him, at his current residence, property previously left at the official lodgings assigned to him when he was posted to the Commission Delegation in Angola, and second, an order for the institution to pay him damages.

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

Summary

1. Officials – Actions – Time-limits – Point from which time starts to run – Notification – Definition

(Staff Regulations, Art. 91(3))

2. Procedure – Costs – Costs caused unreasonably or vexatiously

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

1. The notification of a decision rejecting a complaint in a language which is neither the mother tongue of the official nor that in which the complaint was drafted is lawful provided that the person concerned is able to have effective knowledge of it.

(see para. 42)

See:

T-118/99 Bonaiti Brighina v Commission [2001] ECR-SC I‑A‑25 and II‑97, para. 17

F‑51/05 and F‑18/07 Duyster v Commission [2007] ECR-SC I‑A‑1‑0000 and II‑A‑1‑0000, para. 57

2. It is appropriate to apply the second paragraph of Article 87(3) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, applicable mutatis mutandis to cases pending before the Civil Service Tribunal before the entry into force of its own Rules of Procedure on 1 November 2007, and to order the official to bear all the costs, since he insisted on obstructing the administration by refusing to cooperate with it, and by choosing to initiate proceedings without any justification.

(see paras 55, 56, 58)

See:

T-241/03 Marcuccio v Commission [2006] ECR-SC I‑A‑2‑111 and II‑A‑2‑517, para. 65

F-40/06 Marcuccio v Commission [2007] ECR-SC I‑A‑1‑0000 and II‑A‑1‑0000, para. 50, currently the subject of an appeal before the Court of First Instance, Case T‑46/08 P
ORDER OF THE CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL (Second Chamber)

17 October 2007

Case F-114/06

Amerigo Liotti

v

Commission of the European Communities

(Civil service – Officials – Promotion – Omission from the list of officials promoted – 2005 promotion procedure – Promotion points – Merit – Seniority – Plea of illegality – Admissibility)

Application: brought under Articles 236 EC and 152 EA, in which Mr Liotti seeks, principally, annulment of the list of officials promoted in the 2005 promotion procedure, in so far as that list does not include his name, and, in the alternative, annulment of the decision allocating him promotion points in that procedure.

Held: The action is dismissed as partly manifestly inadmissible and partly manifestly unfounded. Each party is to bear its own costs.

Summary

Officials – Actions – Act adversely affecting an official – Proposal by a Promotion Committee concerning the award of promotion points – Not included

(Staff Regulations, Arts 25, second para., 45, 90 and 91)

A proposal by a Promotion Committee to award different categories of promotion points under a promotion system introduced by an internal regulation of the Commission does not constitute an act adversely affecting an official. Promotion Committees have no power to take decisions concerning the allocation of promotion points. Consequently, although the second paragraph of Article 25 of the Staff Regulations requires that any decision adversely affecting a member of staff must state the grounds on which it is based, that does not apply to such a proposal from a Promotion Committee in respect of an official who has not been promoted.

(see para. 50)
Staff case summary



Staff case summary

Summary

Procedure – Application initiating proceedings – Formal requirements

(Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal, Art. 35(1)(d))

An action by an official which does not precisely identify the measures being challenged and thus does not satisfy the requirements laid down in Article 35(1)(d) of the Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal is manifestly inadmissible.

(see para. 24)

See:

T-72/92 Benzler v Commission [1993] ECR II‑347, paras 16, 18 and 19
Staff case summary



Staff case summary

Summary

1. Procedure – Admissibility of actions – Assessment by reference to the rules in force when the application was lodged

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

2. Officials – Actions – Prior administrative complaint – Time-limits

(Staff Regulations, Arts 90 and 91)

1. Although the rule laid down in Article 76 of the Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal that the Tribunal may, by way of an order, dismiss an action which appears manifestly bound to fail is a procedural rule which, as such, applies to all proceedings pending before the Tribunal at the time when it enters into force, the same is not true of rules on the basis of which the Tribunal may, under that article, regard an action as manifestly inadmissible, and which may only be those applicable on the date when the action is brought.

(see para. 17)

2. A fact is not capable of setting the time-limits for appeal running again unless it ‘changes the situation in law or in fact’ and is ‘capable of substantially altering the situation of the person seeking a review of a decision which has become definitive’.

The publication by an institution of a staff note which merely draws attention to the scope of provisions of the Staff Regulations and internal rules without adding anything to them, and which merely confirms the application of rules which, without that note, would have been applied in any case, cannot be regarded as a new fact.

(see paras 25, 28)

See:

232/85 Becker v Commission [1986] ECR 3401, para. 10

T-58/89 Williams v Court of Auditors [1991] ECR II‑77, paras 46 to 48; T-186/98 Inpesca v Commission [2001] ECR II‑557, para. 51; T‑171/05 Nijs v Court of Auditors [2006] ECR-SC I-A-2-195 and II‑A-2-999, para. 24

F‑92/05 Genette v Commission [2007] ECR-SC I‑A‑1‑1 and II-A-1-1, para. 61
Staff case summary



Staff case summary

Summary

Procedure – Request complied with after action was brought

(Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal, Art. 75)

The Community judicature is entitled to assess, depending on the circumstances of each individual case, whether the proper administration of justice justifies the rejection on the merits of an action for annulment or, by analogy, the finding that an action has become devoid of purpose and that there is therefore no need to adjudicate on its merits, without ruling beforehand on a plea of inadmissibility raised by the defendant.

That applies where the Tribunal has already, in an earlier case, adjudicated on the merits in favour of the applicant in the present case before it, even though, at the hearing and in reply to a question from the Tribunal in that second case, the parties declared that, although the action in the earlier case was ruled admissible and the Tribunal had adjudicated on its merits, there was no need to adjudicate in the second case.

(see paras 5-8)

See:

C-23/00 P Council v Boehringer [2002] ECR I‑1873, paras 51 and 52; C-233/02 France v Commission [2004] ECR I‑2759, para. 26

T-171/02 Regione autonoma della Sardegna v Commission [2005] ECR II‑2123, para. 155

F-134/06 Bordini v Commission [2008] ECR-SC I‑A‑1‑0000 and II‑A‑1‑0000, para. 56; F-115/07 Balieu-Steinmetz and Noworyta v Parliament [2009] ECR-SC I‑A‑1‑0000 and II‑A‑1‑0000
ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT

OF THE CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL

13 March 2007

Case F-1/07 R

Olivier Chassagne

v

Commission of the European Communities

(Application for interim measures – Application for suspension of operation – Urgency – None)

Application: brought under Articles 242 EC, 243 EC, 157 EA and 158 EA, in which Mr Chassagne seeks suspension of the operation of the Commission’s decision of 17 November 2006 drawing up a list of officials promoted to grade A*11 in the 2006 promotion procedure, published on the same date in Administrative Notices 55‑2006.

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

Summary

Application for interim measures – Suspension of operation – Conditions for granting – Urgency – Serious and irreparable damage

(Art. 242 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2))
ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE SECOND CHAMBER OF THE CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL

23 September 2010

Case F-51/07 RENV

Philippe Bui Van

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 Bui Van seeks annulment of the decision of the Director-General of the Joint Research Centre of the Commission of 4 October 2006 reclassifying him in grade AST 3, step 2, whereas he had initially been classified in grade AST 4, step 2, and of the decision of the appointing authority of 5 March 2007 rejecting his complaint, as well as the payment of one symbolic euro as compensation for the non-material damage allegedly suffered.

Held: Case F-51/07 RENV Bui Van v Commission is removed from the register of the Tribunal. Notice is given that the Commission agrees that the applicant should retain the sum of EUR 1 500 paid to him pursuant to the Tribunal’s judgment of 11 September 2008 in Case F-51/07 Bui Van v Commission. Notice is given that the applicant agrees that, for the purpose of the reimbursement of part of the sum which he received in costs pursuant to the judgment of 11 September 2008, the Commission is to recover the sum of EUR 1 500 by withholding EUR 500 from his remuneration each month for three months from October 2010. Each party is to bear its own costs relating to the present proceedings and the proceedings before the General Court of the European Union.

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

4 June 2009

Case F-142/07

Magdalena Kaminska

v

Committee of the Regions of the European Union

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

Application: brought under Articles 236 EC and 152 EA, in which Ms Kaminska, a member of the auxiliary staff at the Committee of the Regions from 16 August 2004 to 30 November 2004, then a member of the temporary staff at the same institution from 1 December 2004 to 31 August 2005 and then from 16 April 2006 to 30 September 2007, essentially seeks payment of the daily allowance provided for in Article 25 of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Communities, which she was refused for part of the period when she was a member of that institution’s temporary staff.

Held: Case F‑142/07 Kaminska v Committee of the Regions is removed from the register of the Tribunal. The Committee of the Regions is to pay the fixed sum of EUR 11 000 to the applicant, who in return waives all claims, including in relation to costs. The Tribunal takes formal notice that the applicant also waives enforcement of the order of the President of the First Chamber of the Tribunal of 27 November 2008 in Case F-142/07 AJ Kaminska v Committee of the Regions partly granting her legal aid.

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 FIRST CHAMBER OF THE CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL

30 June 2008

Case F-59/07

Pierre-Alexis Feral

v

Committee of the Regions of the European Union

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

Application: brought under Articles 236 EC and 152 EA, in which Mr Feral seeks annulment of the decision of the Administration Director of the Committee of the Regions of 26 July 2006 to recover the amounts paid to the applicant in application of the correction coefficient for that part of his remuneration transferred to France between March 2003 and May 2005, and of the same Director’s decision of 4 December 2006 fixing that amount at EUR 3 600.16, together with an order for the Committee of the Regions to repay him that sum plus default interest, to pay him the amount which should have been paid to him if the correct correction coefficient had been applied to the part of his remuneration which should have been transferred to France from June 2005, plus default interest, and to resume the transfer of part of his remuneration to France with the correction coefficient applicable to that country.

Held: Case F‑59/07 Feral v Committee of the Regions is removed from the register of the Tribunal. The Committee of the Regions is ordered to pay the applicant the sum of EUR 3 750 to cover half of the costs he incurred. The applicant is to bear the remainder of his own costs. The Committee of the Regions 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 PRESIDENT OF THE EUROPEAN UNION CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL

(First Chamber)

15 May 2012

Case F‑27/08 RENV

Manuel Simões Dos Santos

v

Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

(Amicable settlement of the dispute — Article 69(1) of the Rules of Procedure — Agreement between the parties on the initiative of the Tribunal — Removal from the register)

Application: brought under Articles 236 EC and 152 EA, in which Mr Simões Dos Santos sought, first, annulment of, in particular, decision No PERS‑01‑07 of the President of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 6 June 2007 awarding him promotion points under the 2003 promotion procedure, as well as of the appointing authority’s letter of 15 June 2007, and second, an order that OHIM pay him damages. The action was registered under reference F‑27/08.

Held: Case F‑27/08 RENV is removed from the register of the Tribunal as a result of the agreement reached between Mr Manuel Simões Dos Santos and the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM). The applicant and OHIM 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)