Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1 Plea of illegality - Incidental nature - Admissibility of the main action - Admissibility of the plea of illegality

(EAEC Treaty, Art. 156)

2 Officials - Actions - Subject-matter - Issue of directions to the administration - Inadmissible

(Staff Regulations, Art. 91)

3 Officials - Actions - Identical subject-matter - Conditions

(Staff Regulations, Art. 91)

4 Procedure - Judgment of the Court of Justice binding on the Court of First Instance - Conditions - Referral back following an appeal - Points of law finally decided by the Court of Justice on appeal - Authority of res judicata

(EAEC Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 55)

5 Officials - Staff of an EAEC Joint Undertaking - Equal treatment - Exceptions - Objective justification

6 Plea of illegality - Subject-matter - Assessment of legality - Criteria

(EAEC Treaty, Arts 146 and 156)

7 Community law - Principles - Equal treatment - Derogating measure - Validity - Limits

8 Officials - Actions - Actions for damages - Origin - Employment relationship - Legal basis

(EAEC Treaty, Art. 152; Staff Regulations, Arts 90 and 91)

9 Officials - Actions - Actions for damages - Action brought against the institution which adopted the act adversely affecting the applicant and not against the institution which allegedly caused the Community to incur liability - Claim for damages linked to claim for annulment - Admissibility

(EAEC Treaty, Art. 152; Staff Regulations, Arts 90 and 91)

10 Officials - Non-contractual liability of the institutions - Conditions - Legislative measure - Sufficiently serious breach of a superior rule of law for the protection of individuals

(EAEC Treaty, Art. 152; Staff Regulations, Arts 90 and 91)

Summary

11 The possibility offered by Article 156 of the EAEC Treaty of pleading the inapplicability of a regulation does not constitute an independent right of action but may only be exercised incidentally, in support of a main claim for annulment which is itself admissible.

12 The Community judicature is not entitled, when exercising judicial review of legality under Article 91 of the Staff Regulations, to issue directions to the institutions, it being for the administration concerned to take the necessary measures to comply with a judgment delivered in an action for annulment.

13 The authority of res judicata attaching to a judgment by which the Court of Justice has dismissed an action as unfounded can constitute a bar to the admissibility of a subsequent action only if both actions are between the same parties, have the same subject-matter and are founded on the same cause. The act whose annulment is sought is an essential element of the subject-matter of an action.

Even if the arguments raised in support of an application may coincide to a certain extent with those put forward in a previous case, the application is not a duplication of that previous case but a new case when it seeks a decision on questions which have not yet been settled.

14 The Court of First Instance is bound by a judgment of the Court of Justice only in the circumstances set out in Article 55 of the EAEC Statute of the Court of Justice or where the principle of res judicata applies.

15 A difference in treatment as regards status and terms of employment between staff employed by an EAEC Joint Undertaking, depending on the organization which made them available, is permissible only if it is objectively justified. In order to determine whether that is the case, it is necessary to take account of the specific features which the Joint Undertaking in question may possess, in terms of both its nature and its organization.

Where the specific system of staff recruitment and secondment decided upon when the Joint Undertaking was set up, establishing and maintaining two distinct categories of staff, depending on the member organization making the staff concerned available to the Joint Undertaking, is subsequently modified in important respects and is no longer able to fulfil the purposes for which it was originally designed, the difference in treatment is no longer objectively justified, particularly where the two categories of staff do not have the same career prospects or security of employment.

16 Article 156 of the EAEC Treaty gives expression to a general principle conferring upon any party to proceedings the right to challenge, for the purpose of obtaining the annulment of a decision of direct and individual concern to that party, the validity of previous acts of the institutions which form the legal basis of the decision which is being contested, if that party was not entitled under Article 146 of the EAEC Treaty to bring a direct action challenging those acts by which it was thus affected without having been in a position to seek their annulment.

Since the legality of the individual measure contested must be assessed on the basis of the elements of fact and of law existing at the time when the measure was adopted, the legality of the legislative measure which forms its legal basis must also be assessed at that time rather than at the time of its own adoption.

17 Since any difference in treatment is in the nature of an exception, derogating from a fundamental principle of Community law, it cannot be regarded as remaining valid, even if the rule establishing it does not explicitly limit its duration, once the circumstances constituting the objective justification for its existence have ceased to obtain.

That is the case in particular where the limited duration of the situation is one of the factors taken into consideration as part of the objective justification for unequal treatment. It is for the author of the rule to ensure that the situation in question does not extend unduly beyond the duration reasonably envisaged at the outset.

That does not conflict in any way with the principle of legality in the Community which, although it entails for individuals the right to challenge the validity of regulations by legal action, also requires all persons subject to Community law to acknowledge that regulations are fully effective so long as they have not been declared to be invalid by a competent court.

18 A dispute between an official and the institution which employs or employed him or her concerning compensation for damage is pursued, where it originates in the employment relationship between the person concerned and the institution, under Article 152 of the EAEC Treaty and Articles 90 and 91 of the Staff Regulations and, as regards, in particular, the question of admissibility, lies outside the sphere of application of Articles 151 and 188 of the EAEC Treaty.

19 Where the liability of the Community is incurred by the act of one of its institutions, it is represented before the Court by the institution or institutions accused of the act giving rise to liability. However, in litigation under Article 152 of the EAEC Treaty and Articles 90 and 91 of the Staff Regulations, the fact that the action was brought against the institution responsible for the act adversely affecting the applicant, and not against the institution accused of the act giving rise to liability, does not render the action inadmissible, if it is closely linked to a claim for annulment which is itself admissible.

20 A finding that a situation arising out of a Community legislative measure is unlawful is not in itself sufficient for the Community to incur liability in the context of Article 152 of the EAEC Treaty and Articles 90 and 91 of the Staff Regulations. It is also necessary that there be a sufficiently serious breach of a superior rule of law for the protection of the individual.

In the context of the broad discretion enjoyed by the institutions to adopt general provisions laying down rules for the establishment and operation of Joint Undertakings set up in accordance with Chapter 5 of Title II of the EAEC Treaty, there can be no liability on the part of the Community unless the institution concerned has manifestly and gravely disregarded the limits on the exercise of its powers.