JUDGMENT OF THE GENERAL COURT (Appeal Chamber)

12 March 2014

Case T‑373/13 P

Geoffroy Alsteens

v

European Commission

(Appeal — Civil service — Temporary staff — Extension of contract — Manifest inadmissibility of the action at first instance — Right to a hearing — Severability of the codicil extending the contract)

Appeal: brought against the order of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 8 May 2013 in Case F‑87/12 Alsteens v Commission [2013] ECR-SC, seeking to have that order set aside.

Held: The order of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 8 May 2013 in Case F‑87/12 Alsteens v Commission is set aside. The action is referred back to the Civil Service Tribunal. The costs are reserved.

Summary

1. Appeal — Cross-appeal — Subject-matter — Need to rely on different pleas in law from those raised in the appeal

(Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 143(2))

2. Judicial proceedings — Decision taken by way of reasoned order — Conditions — Observance of the rights of the defence — Scope

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

3. Judicial proceedings — Decision taken by way of reasoned order — Conditions — Action manifestly inadmissible or manifestly lacking any legal basis — Possibility of declaring the action inadmissible even after the end of the written procedure

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

4. Actions brought by officials — Subject-matter — Partial annulment — Contract as a member of the temporary staff — Severability of the provision concerning the duration of employment — Admissibility

(Art. 266 TFEU; Staff Regulations, Art. 91)

1. Claims for annulment which are based on a plea in law already raised by the appellant in his appeal may not be classified as a cross-appeal as provided for in Article 143(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court. The application of that provision presupposes that the claims for annulment put forward in the response are based on a different plea in law from those raised in the appeal.

(see para. 28)

2. While it is true that the dismissal of an action on the basis of Article 76 of the Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal does not presuppose that the Tribunal first allowed the parties to comment on the grounds for dismissal which it is minded to declare, the application of that article is confined to cases where such grounds are obvious.

That restriction is the consequence of the fact that, as a general rule, observation of the rights of the defence, which includes the right to be heard, means that the parties to proceedings are given the opportunity to comment on the facts and documents on which a judicial decision will be based and to discuss the evidence produced and the observations made to the court as well as the pleas in law on which the court intends to base its decision. In order to satisfy the requirements relating to the right to a fair trial, it is important for the parties to be able to exchange arguments on both the facts and the points of law which are decisive for the outcome of the proceedings.

(see paras 34, 35)

See:

C‑308/07 P Gorostiaga Atxalandabaso v Parliament [2009] ECR I‑1059, para. 36 and the case-law cited therein

T‑491/08 P Bui Van v Commission [2010] ECR-SC, para. 84 and the case-law cited therein

3. An action may be dismissed as manifestly inadmissible even after the written procedure has ended.

(see para. 38)

See:

T‑222/07 P Kerstens v Commission [2008] ECR-SC I‑B‑1-37 and II‑B‑1-267, paras 32 to 34; T‑16/09 P Marcuccio v Commission [2010] ECR-SC, para. 53

4. Partial annulment of an act of EU law is possible only if the elements which it is sought to have annulled can be severed from the remainder of the measure. That requirement of severability is not satisfied where the partial annulment of a measure would have the effect of altering its substance.

As regards a decision extending a temporary staff contract, leaving the other stipulations of the contract unchanged, an application for annulment directed against the limitation of the duration of the contract is not capable of altering the substance of the contested decision, since, if the section of the decision fixing the new duration of the contract were annulled, that duration would still have to be determined by the institution responsible, which would be required, under Article 266 TFEU, to take measures to comply with the judgment of the Union judicature giving rise to that annulment.

(see paras 46, 47, 50)

See:

C‑68/94 and C‑30/95 France and Others v Commission [1998] ECR I‑1375, paras 256 to 258; C‑244/03 France v Parliament and Council [2005] ECR I‑4021, paras 12 to 14; C‑441/11 P Commission v Verhuizingen Coppens [2012] ECR, para. 38

T‑68/89, T‑77/89 and T‑78/89 SIV and Others v Commission [1992] ECR II‑1403, para. 320