Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Appeals – Pleas in law – Plea submitted for the first time in the context of the appeal – Inadmissibility

(Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 42(2) and (1); Arts 113(2) and 118)

2. Appeals – Pleas in law – Inadequate statement of reasons

(Art. 256 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 36 and 53; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 81)

3. Appeals – Pleas in law – Obligation on the General Court to award financial compensation of its own motion – Question of law – Admissibility

4. Officials – Actions – Unlimited jurisdiction – Dispute of a financial character within the meaning of Article 91(1) of the Staff Regulations – Definition

(Staff Regulations, Art. 91(1))

5. Officials – Actions – Unlimited jurisdiction – Possibility of an order of the Court’s own motion that the defendant institution pay compensation

(Staff Regulations, Art. 91(1))

6. Procedure – Length of proceedings before the General Court – Reasonable time – Criteria for assessment – Consequences

(Arts 268 TFEU and 340 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 113(1))

Summary

1. The purpose of the provisions of the first subparagraph of Article 42(2) read in conjunction with Article 118 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court, according to which no new pleas in law may be put forward on appeal, is merely to ensure that the subject-matter of the proceedings is not changed in the appeal.

(see paras 23-24)

2. The duty to state reasons incumbent on the General Court does not require it to provide an account which follows exhaustively and one by one all the arguments put forward by the parties to the case and the General Court’s reasoning may therefore be implicit on condition that it enables the persons concerned to know why the General Court has not upheld their arguments and provides the Court of Justice with sufficient material for it to exercise its power of review.

(see para. 30)

3. The question whether the General Court is obliged to award financial compensation to the appellant of its own motion is a question of law amenable to review on appeal, the admissibility of which cannot be subject to a condition that the appellant make a claim for compensation at first instance. Such an allegation, which essentially amounts to accusing the General Court of disregarding the extent of its jurisdiction, cannot, by its very nature, be relied on at first instance.

(see paras 41-42)

4. Under the second sentence of Article 91(1) of the Staff Regulations, the General Court has, in disputes of a financial character, unlimited jurisdiction, pursuant to which it has the power, if need be of its own motion, to order the defendant to pay compensation for the damage caused by the defendant’s wrongful act and, in such a case, taking account of the circumstances of the case, to assess the damage suffered ex aequo et bono.

‘Disputes of a financial character’ within the meaning of that provision include not only actions brought by staff members seeking to have an institution held liable, but also all those seeking payment by an institution to a staff member of a sum which the latter considers to be due to him under the Staff Regulations or other measure governing their working relations.

An action by which an official seeks annulment of a decision affecting his position under the Staff Regulations may also give rise to a dispute of a financial character within the meaning of Article 91(1) of the Staff Regulations.

In particular, an action by which an official seeks a judicial review of his classification likewise gives rise to a dispute of a financial character given that the decision of the appointing authority on classification not only has an impact on the career of the person concerned and his personal position within the hierarchy, but also has direct effects on his pecuniary rights, in particular the level of his remuneration under the Staff Regulations.

(see paras 44-47)

5. The unlimited jurisdiction conferred on the Courts of the European Union by Article 91(1) of the Staff Regulations entrusts those Courts with the task of providing a complete solution to the disputes brought before them. That jurisdiction is primarily intended to enable the Courts of the Union to guarantee the effectiveness of the judgments by which they annul decisions in staff cases, so that if the annulment of a decision of the appointing authority which contains errors of law is not sufficient to assist the official concerned in enforcing his rights or to protect his interests effectively, the Courts of the Union may award compensation of their own motion.

Moreover, unlimited jurisdiction also gives the Courts of the Union, even in cases where they do not annul the decision at issue, the power of their own motion to order the defendant to pay compensation for the damage caused by the defendant’s wrongful act in the performance of public duties.

(see paras 49-51)

6. Although the failure, if proven, on the part of the General Court to adjudicate within a reasonable time can give rise to a claim for damages in an action brought by an applicant against the European Union under the provisions of Article 268 TFEU in conjunction with the second paragraph of Article 340 TFEU, Article 113(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court provides that, in an appeal, the appellant’s claims must seek to set aside, in whole or in part, the judgment of the General Court and, as the case may be, seek the same form of order, in whole or in part, as that sought at first instance.

Accordingly, where there is no indication that the length of the proceedings affected their outcome in any way, a plea that the proceedings before the General Court did not satisfy the requirements concerning completion within a reasonable time cannot as a general rule lead to the setting aside of the judgment delivered by that Court and must therefore be declared inadmissible.

(see paras 56-57)