ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
ORDER OF THE CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL (Second Chamber)

17 October 2007

Case F-115/06

Carlos Sanchez Ferriz and Others

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 Sanchez Ferriz and nine other Commission officials seek, principally, annulment of the list of officials promoted in the 2005 promotion procedure, in so far as that list does not include their names, and, in the alternative, annulment of the decision allocating them promotion points in that procedure.

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

Summary

1. 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)

2. Officials – Promotion – Complaint by a candidate who has not been promoted – Decision rejecting the complaint – Obligation to state the reasons on which the decision is based

(Staff Regulations, Arts 25, second para., 45 and 90(2))

1. 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. 54)

2. In a promotion procedure, the appointing authority is not obliged to give reasons for a promotion decision, either to the person promoted or to the candidates who have not been promoted. It is obliged, however, to state the grounds for its decision rejecting a complaint lodged pursuant to Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations by a candidate who has not been promoted.

(see para. 55)

See:

C-343/87 Culin v Commission [1990] ECR I‑225, para. 13

T-172/03 Heurtaux v Commission [2005] ECR-SC I‑A‑15 and II‑63, para. 42
Staff case summary



Staff case summary

Summary

1. Application for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Measures not prejudging the decision on the substance of the case – Application for provisional admission to the tests in a competition – Requirement not met

(Arts 242 EC and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2))

2. Application for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Conditions for granting – Urgency – Serious and irreparable damage – Refusal to admit to a competition – None

(Art. 242 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2))
Staff case summary



Staff case summary

Summary

Officials – Actions – Prior administrative complaint – Time-limits – Claim barred by lapse of time – Reopening – Condition – New fact

(Staff Regulations, Arts 90 and 91)

The possibility of submitting a request as provided for in Article 90(1) of the Staff Regulations does not allow an official to set aside the time-limits laid down in Articles 90 and 91 of the Staff Regulations for the lodging of a complaint and an appeal by indirectly calling in question, by means of a request, a previous decision which had not been challenged within the time-limits. It follows that only the existence of important new facts is capable of justifying the submission of a request for reconsideration of a decision which is no longer open to challenge.

(see paras 39, 47)

See:

232/85 Becker v Commission [1986] ECR 3401, para. 8
ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT

OF THE CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL

27 March 2007

Case F-11/07 AJ

António Henriques Montes Dória

v

Commission of the European Communities

(Legal aid)

Application: in which Mr Montes Dória 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: The application for legal aid is rejected.

Summary

Procedure – Application for legal aid – Conditions for granting

(Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 94(3); Staff Regulations, Art. 48; Council Decision 2004/752, Art. 3(4))

An application for legal aid for an action which is manifestly inadmissible must be refused under Article 94(3) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance. That is true of an action brought by an official whose resignation has been accepted and who seeks annulment of the refusal to readmit him to the service, where he has not previously applied under the procedure in Articles 90 and 91 of the Staff Regulations for a declaration that his resignation statement is void. Such an application for readmission may be regarded either as a withdrawal of his resignation statement, which can have no legal effect on a definitive resignation, or as an unsolicited candidature for a post, the rejection of which, since the candidature cannot be other than informal, does not constitute an act adversely affecting the official.

(see paras 3-10, 12)

See:

T-7/98, T-208/98 and T-109/99 De Nicola v EIB [2001] ECR-SC I‑A‑49 and II‑185, paras 119, 287 to 307; T-406/04 Bonnet v Court of Justice [2006] ECR-SC I‑A‑2‑213 and II‑A‑2‑1097, para. 33
ORDER OF THE CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL

(First Chamber)

25 February 2008

Case F-85/07

Ana Anselmo and Others

v

Council of the European Union

(Civil service – Officials – Recruitment – Appointment – Grading – Successful candidates in an internal competition – New evidence – Lack – Manifestly inadmissible)

Application: brought under Articles 236 EC and 152 EA, in which Ms Anselmo and 10 other Council officials essentially seek annulment of the Council’s decisions cancelling, when appointing them to category B* or subsequent to that appointment, the seniority in grade which they had acquired in categories C or D.

Held: The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible. Each party is to pay its own costs.

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
ORDER OF THE CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL

(First Chamber)

30 April 2009

Case F-30/07

Lidia Noworyta

v

European Parliament

(No need to adjudicate)

Application: brought under Articles 236 EC and 152 EA, in which Ms Noworyta seeks annulment of the Parliament’s decision of 28 April 2006 rejecting the proposal of her hierarchical superior of 20 October 2005 and refusing to grant her the fixed allowance for overtime within the meaning of Article 3 of Annex VI to the Staff Regulations; as an alternative to payment of that allowance, the applicant seeks payment of any other allowance either under Article 56a or 56b of the Staff Regulations.

Held: There is no need to adjudicate in Case F‑30/07 Noworyta v Parliament, which is removed from the register of the Tribunal. Each party is to bear its own costs.

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
Staff case summary



Staff case summary

Summary

Officials – Actions – Time-limits – Claim for compensation addressed to an institution – Duty to act within a reasonable time

(Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 46; Staff Regulations, Art. 90)

It is for officials or other staff members to refer to the institution any claim seeking compensation from the Community for damage allegedly attributable to it, within a reasonable period from the time they became aware of the situation they complain of. The reasonableness of the period must be assessed according to the circumstances applicable in each individual case and, in particular, according to the interests in issue for the parties in the case, the complexity of the case and the conduct of the parties involved.

Account must also be taken, in that regard, of the point of reference provided by the limitation period of five years laid down for actions in non-contractual liability by Article 46 of the Statute of the Court of Justice. However, the five-year period does not constitute a hard and fast limit below which any application is admissible regardless of the time the applicant has taken to put his application to the administration and of the circumstances of the case.

(see paras 19-22)

See:

T-144/02 Eagle and Others v Commission [2004] ECR II‑3381, paras 65 and 66

F-125/05 Tsarnavas v Commission [2007] ECR-SC I-A-1-0000 and II-A-1-0000, paras 76 and 77
ORDER OF THE CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL

(First Chamber)

12 June 2009

Case F-69/08

Brigitte Knöll

v

European Police Office (Europol)

(Civil service – Staff of Europol – Non‑extension of employment contract – Indefinite contract – Admissibility – Interest in bringing proceedings – Action against a decision which had been rescinded when the action was brought – Absence of a prior complaint)

Application: brought under Article 40(3) of the Convention based on Article K.3 of the Treaty on European Union, on the establishment of a European Police Office (Europol Convention), and Article 93(1) of the Staff Regulations applicable to Europol employees, in which Ms Knöll seeks annulment of the decision of the Director of Europol of 4 October 2007 refusing to renew her contract and to offer her an indefinite contract, of the decision of the Director of Europol of 29 April 2008 rejecting her complaint against the abovementioned decision of 4 October 2007, and of the decision of the Director of Europol of 12 June 2008 once again refusing to renew her contract.

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

Summary

Officials – Actions – Interest in bringing proceedings – Assessment as at the date on which the action is brought – Contested decision rescinded

A party’s interest in bringing proceedings must exist at the stage of lodging the action, failing which it will be inadmissible. An action for annulment brought against a decision which had been rescinded prior to the date on which the application was registered because a fresh decision had been adopted, following reconsideration, on other grounds and on the basis of other factors than those on which the administration based its first decision is therefore inadmissible. The fresh decision does not constitute a confirmatory decision but, on the contrary, an autonomous decision which replaces the previous decision.

(see paras 34, 35, 37-38)

See:

C-362/05 P Wunenburger v Commission [2007] ECR I‑4333, para. 42

T-49/91 Turner v Commission [1992] ECR II‑1855, paras 24 to 26; T-128/96 Lebedef v Commission [1996] ECR-SC I‑A‑629 and II‑1679, paras 19 and 21; T-68/97 Neumann and Neumann-Schölles v Commission [1999] ECR-SC I‑A‑193 and II‑1005, para. 58; T‑49/97 TAT European Airlines v Commission [2000] ECR II‑51, paras 30 to 36; T-159/98 Torre and Others v Commission [2001] ECR-SC I‑A‑83 and II‑395, para. 28; T-281/03 Liakoura v Council [2004] ECR-SC I‑A‑61 and II‑249, paras 36 to 38; T-272/03 Fernández-Gómez v Commission [2005] ECR-SC I‑A‑229 and II‑1049, paras 36 and 42 to 44

F-28/08 Pouzol v Court of Auditors [2008] ECR-SC I‑A‑1‑0000 and II‑A‑1‑0000, paras 45 to 50
ORDER OF THE CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL

(Second Chamber)

18 December 2008

Case F-64/08

Bart Nijs

v

Court of Auditors of the European Communities

(Civil service – Officials – Article 35(1)(e) of the Rules of Procedure – Summary statement in application of pleas in law – Staff reporting procedure – Designation of reporting officer and countersigning officer – No act adversely affecting the applicant – Manifest inadmissibility)

Application: brought under Articles 236 EC and 152 EA, in which Mr Nijs seeks annulment of the decision of 27 September 2007 of the Secretary-General of the Court of Auditors, acting in his capacity as the appointing authority, designating the Director of Translation at the Court of Auditors as the applicant’s reporting officer and himself as the countersigning officer for the staff reporting procedure, together with compensation for the non-material damage allegedly suffered.

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

Summary

Officials – Actions – Act adversely affecting an official – Definition – Preparatory act – Designation of the reporting officer and the countersigning officer for the assessment procedure

(Staff Regulations, Arts 90(2) and 91(1))

Only measures producing binding legal consequences liable to affect the applicant’s interests directly and immediately by significantly changing his legal situation constitute acts or decisions which may be the subject of an action for annulment. In the case of acts or decisions adopted by a procedure involving several stages, in particular where they are the culmination of an internal procedure, only a measure definitively establishing the position of the institution at the conclusion of that procedure is challengeable, and not a provisional measure intended to pave the way for the final decision, although the validity of the provisional measure may be contested indirectly in an action against the challengeable measure. Even if decisive significance might be attributed to a letter designating an official’s reporting officer and countersigning officer for the purposes of the reporting procedure, that designation constitutes a provisional measure intended to pave the way for the final decision on the assessment of the official’s efficiency, ability and conduct in the service, pursuant to Article 43 of the Staff Regulations. The validity of such a measure can therefore only be called into question in an action against the final assessment report.

(see paras 16-17)

See:

11/64 Weighardt v Commission [1965] ECR 285, 298; 346/87 Bossi v Commission [1989] ECR 303, para. 23

T-32/89 and T-39/89 Marcopoulos v Courtof Justice [1990] ECR II‑281, paras 21 and 22; T-358/03 Krahl v Commission [2005] ECR‑SC I‑A‑215 and II‑993, para. 38

F-101/05 Grünheid v Commission [2006] ECR-SC I‑A‑1‑55 and II‑A‑1‑199, para. 33; F‑27/06 and F‑75/06 Lofaro v Commission [2007] ECR-SC I-A-0000 and II-A-0000, para. 57, on appeal before the Court of First Instance, Case T‑293/07 P
ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE FIRST CHAMBER OF THE CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL

16 September 2010

Case F-90/09

Frédéric Ernotte

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 Ernotte seeks, principally, an order that the Commission pay him compensation for the material and non-material loss suffered as a result of the unreasonable period in which it handled the procedure for recognition of the accidental nature and occupational origin of the infarct which he suffered on 28 August 2002.

Held: Case F-90/09 Ernotte v Commission is removed from the register of the Tribunal. The Commission is to pay the applicant the fixed sum of EUR 10 000, which includes his lawyer’s fees.

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)
Staff case summary



Staff case summary

Summary

1. Procedure – Decision taken by way of reasoned order – Conditions

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

2. Officials – Representation – Protection of staff representatives

(Staff Regulations, Annex II, Art. 1, sixth para.)

1. The Community judicature is entitled to assess, according to the circumstances of each case, whether the proper administration of justice justifies the dismissal on the merits of an action which is manifestly unfounded pursuant to Article 76 of the Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal, without first ruling on the objection of inadmissibility raised by the defendant. That is true in a case where the approach adopted by the Tribunal in a previous judgment concerning the applicant may be transposed mutatis mutandis, servatis servandis , to the case in question.

(see paras 45-46)

See:

F-32/08 Klein v Commission [2009] ECR-SC I‑A‑1‑0000 and II‑A‑1‑0000, para. 20 and the case-law cited therein; F-39/08 Lebedef v Commission [2009] ECR-SC I‑A‑1‑0000 and II‑A‑1‑0000

2. Article 10 of the Framework Agreement of 27 January 2006 on relations between the Commission and the trade unions and staff associations and the sixth paragraph of Article 1 of Annex II to the Staff Regulations have essentially the same content and purpose, which is to protect staff representatives, the only basic difference being in their respective personal scope. The sixth paragraph of Article 1 of Annex II to the Staff Regulations concerns representatives under the Staff Regulations, that is to say members of the Staff Committee and officials appointed by the Committee to organs set up under the Staff Regulations, while Article 10 of the Framework Agreement concerns trade union delegates and agents.

(see para. 49)

See:

Lebedef v Commission
ORDER OF THE EUROPEAN UNION CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL

(First Chamber)

10 September 2014

Ingo Hanschmann

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 Mr Hanschmann following the judgment in Hanschmann v Europol (F‑27/09, EU:F:2010:58).

Held:

The total amount of costs to be reimbursed by the European Police Office to Mr Hanschmann 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 his lawyers, that he 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