ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE SECOND CHAMBER OF THE CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL



16 September 2011





Case F-138/07





Rinse van Arum

v

European Parliament

(Removal from the register)

Application: by a letter which reached the Registry of the Tribunal on 20 July 2011, Mr van Arum informed the Tribunal that, in view of the order delivered by the General Court of the European Union on 28 June 2011 in Case T-454/09 P van Arum v Parliament, he was withdrawing the present application brought under Articles 236 EC and 152 EA.

Held: Case F-138/07 van Arum v Parliament is removed from the register of the Tribunal. Each party is to bear its own costs.
ORDER OF THE CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL

(First Chamber)

19 December 2007

Case F-20/07

Luigi Marcuccio

v

Commission of the European Communities

(Civil service – Officials – Social security – Sickness insurance – Repayment of medical expenses – Express rejection of the application)

Application: brought under Articles 236 EC and 152 EA, in which Mr Marcuccio, a former Commission official, seeks in particular annulment of the decision by which the appointing authority rejected his request of 31 March 2006 for the 100% reimbursement of various medical expenses under Article 72(1) of the Staff Regulations. The applicant further seeks an order that the Commission pay him the difference between the total amount of medical expenses at issue and the amount which has already been reimbursed to him in this respect, that is, the sum of EUR 323.09. Lastly, the applicant demands that 10% default interest with annual capitalisation from 8 April 2006 be added to that sum.

Held: The Civil Service Tribunal declines jurisdiction in Case F-20/07 Marcuccio v Commission, in order that the Court of First Instance may hear and determine that case. The costs are reserved.

Summary

Procedure – Allocation of jurisdiction among the various Community Courts

(Statute of the Court of Justice, Annex I, Art. 8(3); Staff Regulations of Officials, Art. 72)

Where the Civil Service Tribunal is seised of a case against the refusal to grant an official the 100% reimbursement of medical expenses to which he claims he is entitled on account of the mental illness from which he claims he is suffering, it is required, under the second paragraph of Article 8(3) of Annex I to the Statute of the Court of Justice, to decline jurisdiction in favour of the Court of First Instance where there are other cases pending before the Court of First Instance between the same parties, founded on the same legal basis and also concerning the right to 100% reimbursement of medical expenses. Those various cases constitute a single dispute and it is consistent with the sound administration of justice, which the provisions of Article 8(3) of Annex I to the Statute of the Court of Justice seek to ensure, to confer on one court only the power to determine the whole of that dispute.

(see paras 8-16)
ORDER OF THE CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL

(First Chamber)

4 November 2008

Case F-87/07

Luigi Marcuccio

v

Commission of the European Communities

(Civil service – Officials – Action for damages – Allegedly unlawful conduct on the part of the Commission’s Medical Service – Inadmissibility – Failure to comply with a reasonable period for lodging a claim for compensation)

Application: brought under Articles 236 EC and 152 EA, in which Mr Marcuccio primarily seeks compensation for the damage allegedly suffered by reason of the unlawful conduct of the Commission’s Medical Service in dealing with three medical certificates produced by the applicant in the summer of 2001.

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

Summary

1. 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)

2. Officials – Actions – Action for damages – Subject-matter – Ruling – Manifest inadmissibility

(Staff Regulations, Arts 90 and 91)

1. The onus is on officials or other staff to submit a claim for compensation from the Community for loss alleged to be attributable to the Community within a reasonable period from the time when they became aware of the situation of which they complain. The reasonableness of a period is to be appraised in the light of the circumstances specific to each case and, in particular, the importance of the case for the person concerned, its complexity and the conduct of the parties.

Account must also be taken 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 rigid and intangible limit below which any claim is admissible regardless of the time taken by the applicant to submit his claim to the administration and of the circumstances of the case.

(see paras 27-30)

See:

9/75 Meyer-Burckhardt v Commission [1975] ECR 1171, paras 7, 10 and 11

T-144/02 Eagle and Others v Commission [2004] ECR II‑3381, paras 65, 66 and 71

F-125/05 Tsarnavas v Commission [2007] ECR-SC I‑A‑1‑0000 and II‑A‑1‑0000, paras 71, 76 and 77

2. In an action for compensation brought by an official, claims which seek, in reality, a declaration by the Community judicature that certain arguments put forward in support of the claim for compensation are well founded are manifestly inadmissible because it is not for the court to make statements of law. That is true of claims that the Community judicature should make a declaration establishing the reality of the actions and conduct complained of and declare them unlawful.

(see para. 36)

See:

108/88 Jaenicke Cendoya v Commission [1989] ECR 2711, paras 8 and 9
Staff case summary



Staff case summary

Summary

1. Procedure – Costs – Discontinuance justified by the conduct of the other party

(Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal, Art. 89(5))

2. Officials – Actions – Act adversely affecting an official – Definition – Decision that the official is fit for work and ordering him to return to work – Admissibility

(Staff Regulations, Arts 59(4), 90 and 91)

1. As provided for in Article 89(5) of the Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal, a party who discontinues or withdraws from proceedings is to be ordered to pay the costs if they have been applied for in the observations of the other party on the discontinuance. However, upon application by the party who discontinues or withdraws from proceedings, the costs are to be borne by the other party if this appears justified by the conduct of that party. In an action brought by an official against a decision refusing to recognise his invalidity, where the institution failed to reply to a prior complaint within the four-month period for reaching an implied rejection decision and adopted an ambiguous attitude regarding the official’s position after he brought the action, it must be regarded as having contributed, through its conduct, to legal proceedings being brought, and may be ordered to pay part of the applicant official’s costs.

(see paras 6-10)

2. Where a decision of the appointing authority resulting from an opinion of the Invalidity Committee contains, in addition to a view on an official’s fitness for work which does not, in itself, alter that person’s previous legal position, an instruction for him to return to work, that decision constitutes an act adversely affecting the official which he is entitled to challenge.

(see paras 14, 17, 19)
Staff case summary



Staff case summary

Summary

Officials – Actions – Act adversely affecting an official – Concept – Note from the administration informing the official concerned of its intention to make a deduction from his invalidity pension – Not included

(Staff Regulations, Arts 90 and 91)

A note from the administration informing an official of its intention to make a deduction from his invalidity pension, if he does not apply to the Community courts for taxation of costs which he was ordered to pay in an earlier case, does not constitute the adoption of a definitive position by the administration and may not be regarded as having directly and immediately affected his interests by bringing about a distinct change in his legal position.

(see paras 21, 24)
ORDER OF THE EUROPEAN UNION CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL

(First Chamber)

10 September 2014

Rudolf Sluiter

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 Sluiter following the judgment in Sluiter v Europol (F‑34/09, EU:F:2010:60).

Held:

The total amount of costs to be reimbursed by the European Police Office to Mr Sluiter 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
ORDER OF THE EUROPEAN UNION CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL

(First Chamber)

12 July 2012

Case F‑22/11

Rosella Conticchio

v

European Commission

(Civil service — Officials — Pensions — Calculation of pension rights — Classification in step — Preliminary plea of illegality — Whether admissible)

Application: brought under Article 270 TFEU, applicable to the EAEC Treaty by virtue of Article 106a thereof, in which Ms Conticchio seeks, principally, annulment of the decision relating to the payment of her retirement pension.

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 — Definition — Salary statement — Inclusion for the purposes of the exercise of the right to bring proceedings — Condition

(Staff Regulations, Arts 90 and 91)

A pay slip, by its nature and purpose, does not as such have the characteristics of an act adversely affecting an official, since it merely expresses in financial terms the effect of earlier legal decisions concerning the official’s situation. Thus, the act which actually adversely affects the official is the decision by the appointing authority to reduce or abolish a payment which the official received hitherto and which was shown on his pay slips.

That being said, the fact remains that, as far as procedural law is concerned, a pay slip may constitute a measure producing specific legal effects in respect of the person to whom it is addressed. In particular, notification of the monthly salary statement has the effect of setting time running for the purpose of the time-limit for proceedings against an administrative decision, where the existence of that decision is clearly apparent from the statement. That is the case with a monthly salary statement which reveals the existence of a decision of the administration on an official’s classification in step.

(see paras 26, 27)

See:

27 June 1989, 200/87 Giordani v Commission, paras 13 and 14

23 April 2008, F–103/05 Pickering v Commission, para. 72 and the case-law cited therein
As is apparent from the first paragraph of Article 19 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, applicable before the Civil Service Tribunal pursuant to Article 7(1) of Annex I to that Statute, the institutions are free to have recourse to the assistance of a lawyer. The latter’s remuneration is covered by the concept of expenses necessarily incurred for the purposes of the proceedings, without the institution being required to show that such assistance was objectively warranted.

In that regard, whilst the fact that the institution instructed a number of agents and a lawyer has no impact on the possible recoverability of those costs, since there is nothing to preclude such recovery in principle, it may have an impact on the determination of the amount of costs incurred for the purposes of the proceedings which may ultimately be recovered. Any other assessment which makes the right of an institution to claim all or part of the fees paid to a lawyer subject to proof of an objective need to use that lawyer’s services would in fact constitute an indirect restriction on the freedom conferred by the first paragraph of Article 19 of the Statute of the Court of Justice and entail for the EU judicature a duty to substitute its own assessment for that of the institutions and bodies responsible for the organisation of their departments. Such an assessment is compatible neither with the first paragraph of Article 19 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, nor with the power to adopt rules for their own internal organisation enjoyed by the institutions and bodies of the European Union in relation to the management of their cases before the courts of the European Union. On the other hand, whether account should be taken of the involvement of one or more agents alongside the lawyer in question is a matter for the discretion vested in the EU judicature in proceedings for the taxation of costs under Article 91(b) of the Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal.

(see paras 34, 35)

Orders in Dietz v Commission, 126/76 DEP, EU:C:1979:158, para. 6, and Commission v Kallianos, C-323/06 P-DEP, EU:C:2012:49, paras 10 and 11

Orders in Kerstens v Commission, T-498/09 P-DEP, EU:T:2012:147, para. 20, and Marcuccio v Commission, T-278/07 P-DEP, EU:T:2013:269, paras 14 and 15
ORDER OF THE EUROPEAN UNION CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL

(Second Chamber)

16 November 2012

Case F‑50/12

Cătălin Ion Ciora

v

European Commission

(Civil service — Notice of competition EPSO/AD/198/10 — Non-admission to the competition — Action — Failure to comply with the pre-litigation procedure — Manifest inadmissibility)

Application: brought under Article 270 TFEU, applicable to the EAEC Treaty by virtue of Article 106a thereof, in which Mr Ciora seeks, in essence, annulment of the decision of the selection board for competition EPSO/AD/198/10, of which he was notified on 3 March 2011, not to accept his application.

Held: The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible. The applicant is to bear his own costs.

Summary

Officials — Actions brought by officials — Decision of a selection board — Prior administrative complaint — Optional — Introduction — Consequences — Compliance with the procedural requirements applicable to a prior complaint

(Staff Regulations, Arts 90 and 91)

The legal remedy available regarding decisions of a competition selection board normally consists of a direct application to the European Union Courts. However, if the person concerned chooses, instead of referring the matter directly to the European Union Courts, to refer the question first to the administration by means of an administrative complaint, the admissibility of the action brought subsequently against the decision rejecting the complaint will depend on his compliance with all the procedural requirements applicable to the prior complaint.

(see paras 18, 20)

See:

31 May 2005, T‑294/03 Gibault v Commission, para. 22

23 November 2010, F‑50/08 Bartha v Commission, para. 25
ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE FIRST CHAMBER OF THE EUROPEAN UNION CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL

28 February 2013

Case F-47/12

M

v

European Medicines Agency (EMA)

(Amicable settlement of the proceedings — Article 69(1) of the Rules of Procedure — Agreement of the parties at the initiative of the Tribunal — Removal from the register)

Application: brought under Article 270 TFEU, applicable to the EAEC Treaty pursuant to Article 106a thereof, whereby M seeks annulment of the decision of 15 September 2011 whereby the European Medicines Agency (EMA) refused to award him an invalidity allowance.

Held: Case F-47/12 M v EMA is removed from the register of the Tribunal following the agreement reached between M and the European Medicines Agency. M and the European Medicines Agency are to bear their own costs, in accordance with their agreement.

Summary

Actions brought by officials — Amicable settlement of the dispute before the Civil Service Tribunal — Removal from the register

(Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal, Art. 69(3))
ORDER OF THE EUROPEAN UNION CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL

(First Chamber)

16 December 2013

Silvana Roda

v

European Commission

‛Civil service — Survivor’s pension — Death of former spouse — Maintenance — Pre-litigation procedure — Requirement of a complaint — Out of time — Manifest inadmissibility’

Application:

under Article 270 TFEU, applicable to the EAEC Treaty pursuant to Article 106a thereof, in which Ms Roda seeks an order that the European Commission should pay her 35% of her late former husband’s retirement pension from the date of his death, together with interest on the arrears.

Held:

The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible. Ms Roda is to bear her own costs.

Summary

Actions brought by officials — Prior administrative complaint — Time-limits — Matter of public policy — To be considered of the Court’s own motion

(Staff Regulations, Art. 90(2))

The time-limit of three months for lodging a complaint against an act adversely affecting an official, laid down in Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations is a matter of public policy and is not subject to the discretion of the parties or the EU Court, since it was established in order to ensure that legal positions are clear and certain and that there is legal certainty. It is therefore for the EU Court to verify, of its own motion, whether it has been complied with.

(see para. 13)

See:

7 September 2005, T‑358/03 Krahl v Commission, para. 35 and the case-law cited
The application of new general implementing provisions for Articles 11 and 12 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations, in respect of a transfer to the EU pension scheme of pension rights acquired under another pension scheme, requested prior to the adoption of those provisions but carried out after they had entered into force, is not contrary to Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations.

In this regard, according to a generally accepted principle and save as otherwise provided, a new rule applies immediately to situations yet to arise and to the future effects of situations which arose, but were not fully constituted, under the old rule. That is so except for situations originating and becoming definitive under the previous rule, which create acquired rights. A right is considered to be acquired when the event giving rise to it occurred before the legislative amendment. However, that is not the case when the event creating the right did not take place under the legislation that has been amended.

In the first place, Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations does not prevent such immediate application of new general implementing provisions.

Secondly, neither the notification, to an official or other member of staff who has submitted an application for a transfer to the EU pension scheme of pension rights acquired under another pension scheme, of a proposal concerning additional pensionable years, nor, far less, the mere submission of such an application, alters the legal situation of the person concerned or produces binding legal effects. Accordingly, there were no acquired rights held by an official or other member of staff which were capable of being infringed by the application of the new provisions.

Moreover, the right of an official or other member of staff to be credited with pensionable years is not fully constituted until the capital sum representing his rights acquired under another scheme has been transferred to the EU pension scheme.

(see paras 32-35, 37)

See:

Judgment of 13 October 2015 in Commission v Verile and Gjergji, T‑104/14 P, EU:T:2015:776, paras 151 to 154 and the case-law cited
ORDER OF THE EUROPEAN UNION CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL

(First Chamber)

13 February 2014

Case F‑75/13

Norbert Probst

v

European Commission

(Civil service — Official — Expatriation allowance — Article 4 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations — Request for reconsideration — Substantial new facts — Action manifestly inadmissible)

Application: under Article 270 TFEU, applicable to the EAEC Treaty pursuant to Article 106a thereof, whereby Mr Probst seeks annulment of the decision of 4 October 2012 by which the European Commission rejected his request for a reconsideration of the decision refusing to grant him the expatriation allowance.

Held: The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible. Mr Probst is to bear his own costs and is ordered to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.

Summary

Actions brought by officials — Prior administrative complaint — Time-limits — Claim barred by lapse of time — Reopening — Condition — Substantial new fact

(Staff Regulations, Arts 90 and 91)

A decision which has not been challenged by the person to whom it is addressed within the prescribed period becomes definitive as against that person. However, the existence of substantial new facts may justify the submission of a request for reconsideration of an earlier decision which has become definitive.

An action brought against a decision refusing to reconsider a decision which has become definitive will be declared admissible if it appears that the request for reconsideration was actually based on substantial new facts.

An annulling judgment of a Union Court is capable of constituting a new fact only in respect of, first, the parties to the proceedings and, second, other persons directly concerned by the annulled measure.

(see paras 16, 17, 23)

See:

19 June 2007, T‑473/04 Asturias Cuerno v Commission,

12 September 2011, F‑98/10 Cervelli v Commission, confirmed on appeal by the order of the General Court of the European Union of 11 October 2012, T‑622/11 P Cervelli v Commission, paras 19, 20 and 23 and the case-law cited therein
For a decision to be capable of being described as an act adversely affecting an official within the meaning of Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations, it must have been adopted by the appointing authority or on its behalf. This is a matter of public policy which the Civil Service Tribunal may raise of its own motion.

In view of the status of the authority which addressed the contested act to him and the fact that, on complaint, the appointing authority confirmed the act, the official concerned cannot be criticised for bringing proceedings against the act in the mistaken belief that it was a decision of the competent authority.

(see paras 20, 22)

judgments in Gerin v Commission, 806/79, EU:C:1980:264, para. 4; and Erdini v Council, 65/83, EU:C:1984:24, para. 7

judgment in Devillez and Others v Parliament, T‑46/90, EU:T:1993:54, para. 13

order in Pedeferri and Others v Commission, F‑57/10, EU:F:2011:104, para. 14