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

(Second Chamber)

15 February 2007

Cases F-142/06 and F-142/06 AJ

Francesco Bligny

v

Commission of the European Communities

(Officials – Open competition – Conditions for admission – Non‑admission to correction of the written test – Incomplete application – Proof of citizenship – Legal aid)

Application: brought under Articles 236 EC and 152 EA, in which Mr Bligny seeks annulment of the decisions of the selection board in competition EPSO/AD/26/05 of 23 November and 7 December 2006 refusing to correct his written test on the ground that his application had not included any document proving his citizenship. Furthermore, Mr Bligny has applied for legal aid for Cases F‑142/06 and F‑142/06 R 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 action is dismissed as manifestly unfounded. The application for legal aid is rejected. The parties are ordered to bear their own costs.

Summary

Officials – Competitions – Conditions for admission – Fixing by the competition notice

(Staff Regulations, Annex III, Arts 2 and 5)

The selection board in a competition is bound by the text of the notice of competition. Consequently, an application is manifestly unfounded where it seeks the annulment of its decision to exclude a candidate who has not provided, within the requisite period, a document proving his citizenship, despite the fact that the notice of competition clearly states that it must be included if the application is to be valid. That conclusion is not affected by the argument, which is not based on any legal provision, that the administration should have provided candidates with all the necessary information through their electronic application file, without there being any need for them to consult the competition notice, for the candidates are bound by that competition notice in the same way as the selection board.

(see paras 26-31, 33)

See:

T-95/00 and T-96/00 Zaur-Gora and Dubigh v Commission [2001] ECR-SC I‑A‑79 and II‑379, para. 47; T-139/00 Bal v Commission [2002] ECR-SC I‑A‑33 and II‑139, para. 35

F-12/05 Tas v Commission [2006] ECR-SC I‑A‑1‑79 and II‑A‑1‑285, para. 43
ORDER OF THE CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL

(First Chamber)

14 December 2007

Case F-131/06

Robert Steinmetz

v

Commission of the European Communities

(Civil service – Officials – Amicable settlement – Performance of an agreement – Refusal to reimburse expenditure in connection with a mission – Manifest inadmissibility – No legal interest in bringing proceedings – Apportioning costs – Unreasonable and vexatious costs)

Application: brought under Articles 236 EC and 152 EA, in which Mr Steinmetz seeks, first, annulment of the Commission’s decision of 21 February 2006 not to give full effect to an agreement which formed part of the amicable settlement reached between the parties in Case T-155/05, which was brought before the Court of First Instance, and, second, payment of symbolic damages of EUR 1 for the non‑pecuniary harm he alleges.

Held: The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible. The applicant is ordered to bear his own costs, with the exception of an amount of EUR 500. In addition to its own costs, the Commission is ordered to bear the applicant’s costs in the sum of EUR 500.

Summary

1. Procedure – Admissibility of pleadings – Assessment at the time when the pleading is submitted

(Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 114)

2. Officials – Actions – Action disregarding the content of an amicable settlement which had previously led to a case being withdrawn – No legal interest in bringing proceedings

1. Just as the admissibility of an action must be judged by reference to the situation prevailing when the application was lodged, the admissibility of other pleadings, such as a plea of inadmissibility, must be judged at the time when they are submitted. Such an interpretation ensures respect for the principles of legal certainty and the protection of legitimate expectations.

(see para. 27)

See:

50/84 Bensider and Others v Commission [1984] ECR 3991, para. 8

T-236/00 R II Stauner and Others v Parliament and Commission [2001] ECR II‑2943, para. 49; T-219/01 Commerzbank v Commission [2003] ECR II‑2843, para. 61

2. Where, in a dispute before the Tribunal, an applicant proposes an amicable settlement to a defendant institution, the institution accepts part of that proposal and, on the basis of that partial acceptance, the applicant successfully requests that the Tribunal remove the case from the register, the official concerned must be regarded as having accepted the agreement finally proposed by the institution and therefore has no interest in disputing the content of that agreement on the pretext that it does not correspond to his initial proposal.

Where an institution has met all of the commitments arising from an agreement reached in a dispute between itself and an applicant, that applicant has no interest in complaining that the institution did not comply with the terms of that agreement.

(see paras 44-52)
Staff case summary



Staff case summary

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, Arts 69 and 74)
ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE FIRST CHAMBER

OF THE CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL

19 July 2011

Case F-31/07 RENV

Françoise Putterie

v

European Commission

(Amicable settlement – Removal from the register)

Application: brought under Articles 236 EC and 152 EA, in which Ms Putterie seeks annulment of her career development report for the period 1 January to 31 December 2005, in so far as that report, and particularly heading 6.5 ‘Potential’, does not recognise her potential to perform category B* functions.

Held: Case F-31/07 RENV Putterie v Commission is removed from the register of the Tribunal. The parties are to bear the costs as agreed between them.

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)
ORDER OF THE CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL (First Chamber)

11 September 2007

Case F-12/07

Elizabeth O’Connor

v

Commission of the European Communities

(Civil service – Other servants – Consecutive contracts as a member of the temporary staff, auxiliary staff and contract staff – Maximum period of payment of unemployment allowance – Admissibility)

Application: brought under Articles 236 EC and 152 EA, in which Mrs O’Connor seeks annulment of the Commission’s decision of 5 April 2006 setting the maximum period for the award of an unemployment allowance to her at 11 months and 25 days.

Held: The action is dismissed in part as manifestly inadmissible and in part as manifestly unfounded. The Commission is ordered to bear all the costs, including those of the applicant incurred in the context of her application for legal aid.

Summary

1. Officials – Members of the temporary staff and contract staff – Unemployment allowance – Maximum period of payment

(Conditions of Employment of Other Servants, Arts 28a(4), 70 and 96(4))

2. Procedure – Costs – Action in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded

(Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Arts 87(3), first subpara., and 94(3))

1. The provisions of Article 28a(4) and Article 96(4) of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants laying down the maximum period during which, respectively, a former member of the temporary staff and a former member of the contract staff may be paid an unemployment allowance by the Communities do not apply to a former member of the auxiliary staff who, under Article 70 of those Conditions of Employment, is affiliated by the institution employing him to a national compulsory social security scheme and can therefore obtain payment of an unemployment allowance only from that scheme. The provisions of Article 28a(4) and Article 96(4) of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants thus do not require the institution to take account, for the purposes of setting the maximum period for which an unemployment allowance is to be paid by the Communities, the periods during which the staff member concerned was employed as a member of the auxiliary staff.

(see para. 20)

2. In a case where, as it was required to do by the provisions of Article 94(3) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, the Tribunal has rejected an application for legal aid because the action appeared manifestly inadmissible or manifestly unfounded, it is nevertheless appropriate, in the procedure dealing with the merits of the case, to apply the provisions of the first subparagraph of Article 87(3) of the Rules of Procedure and, exceptionally, to order the administration to pay, in addition to its own costs, all the costs incurred by the applicant, including any incurred in the context of his application for legal aid, in view of the applicant’s financial situation and the fact that, in the case in question, the contested decision contradicted, without explanation, the information previously provided by the relevant department .

(see paras 32-33)
ORDER OF THE CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL

(First Chamber)

14 December 2007

Case F-21/07

Luigi Marcuccio

v

Commission of the European Communities

(Civil service – Officials – Action for damages – Allegedly unlawful processing of medical information – Inadmissibility – Failure to bring a claim for damages within a reasonable time)

Application: brought under Articles 236 EC and 152 EA, in which Mr Marcuccio seeks, principally, compensation for the damage he allegedly suffered as a result of a series of unlawful acts on the part of a number of Commission officials when processing medical information concerning him.

Held: The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible. The parties are to bear their 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 – 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)

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 is manifestly bound to fail is a procedural rule which, as such, applies from the time when it enters into force to all proceedings pending before the Tribunal, 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. 14)

2. 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 inviolable 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 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
Staff case summary



Staff case summary

Summary

Officials – Administration's duty to have regard for the welfare of officials – Obligation to address to an official an individual decision worded in a language of which he has a thorough knowledge

(Art. 21 EC; Charter of Fundamental Rights, Art. 41(4); Rules of Procedure of the Commission, Annex, para. 4)

The institutions are under a duty to have regard for the welfare of their officials and therefore to address to an official an individual decision worded in a language of which he has a thorough knowledge.

It cannot be inferred from the third paragraph of Article 21 EC, or from paragraph 4 of the Code of good administrative conduct, or from Article 41(4) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights that every decision addressed by a Community institution to one of its officials should be drawn up in the initial language of correspondence. Those provisions are applicable to relations between the institutions and their staff only where the latter address a document to the institutions solely in their capacity as citizens of the European Union and not in their capacity as officials or other staff of the Communities. If the institutions were obliged, in all events, to reply to a request from an official in the same language as that used in that request, it would result in insurmountable difficulties for the institutions.

(see paras 29-33)

See:

T-197/98 Rudolph v Commission [2000] ECR-SC I‑A‑55 and II‑241, para. 46; T-118/99 Bonaiti Brighina v Commission [2001] ECR-SC I‑A‑25 and II‑97, para. 13; T-95/04 Lavagnoli v Commission [2006] ECR-SC I‑A‑2‑121 and II‑A‑2‑569, para. 48

F‑51/05 and F‑18/06 Duyster v Commission [2007] ECR-SC I‑A‑1‑0000 and II‑A‑1‑0000, paras 58 and 59
ORDER OF THE CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL

(First Chamber)

12 June 2009

Case F-68/08

Rudolf Sluiter

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 Mr Sluiter seeks annulment of the decision of the Director of Europol of 4 October 2007 refusing to renew his contract and to offer him an indefinite contract, of the decision of the Director of Europol of 29 April 2008 rejecting his 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 his 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 33, 34, 36-37)

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 (First Chamber)

18 February 2009

Case F-42/08

Luigi Marcuccio

v

Commission of the European Communities

(Civil service – Officials – Actions for damages – Failure to comply with a reasonable period for lodging a claim for compensation – Manifest inadmissibility)

Application: brought under Articles 236 EC and 152 EA, in which Mr Marcuccio essentially seeks an order for the Commission to compensate him for the damage resulting from the fact that it purportedly sent him a note to a fax number which it should not have used.

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

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
Staff case summary



Staff case summary

Summary

Procedure – Time-limit for instituting proceedings – Claim barred by lapse of time – Excusable error – Concept

(Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal, Arts 97(4) and 100(3); Staff Regulations, Art. 91(3))

In the context of the Community rules on time-limits for instituting proceedings, the concept of excusable error justifying a derogation from those rules can concern only exceptional circumstances in which, in particular, the conduct of the institution concerned has been, either alone or to a decisive extent, such as to give rise to pardonable confusion in the mind of a party acting in good faith and displaying all the diligence required of a normally well-informed person.

(see para. 21)

See:

C-195/91 P Bayer v Commission [1994] ECR I‑5619, para. 26; C-193/01 P Pitsiorlas v Council and ECB [2003] ECR I‑4837, para. 24
ORDER OF THE EUROPEAN UNION CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL

(First Chamber)

10 September 2014

Kate Armitage-Wilson

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 Ms Armitage-Wilson following the judgment in Armitage-Wilson v Europol (F‑36/09, EU:F:2010:62).

Held:

The total amount of costs to be reimbursed by the European Police Office to Ms Armitage-Wilson 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 her lawyers, that she 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 PRESIDENT OF THE FIRST CHAMBER

OF THE CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL

25 May 2011

Case F-93/10

AL

v

European Parliament

(Amicable settlement — Removal from the register)

Application: brought under Article 270 TFEU, applicable to the EAEC Treaty pursuant to Article 106a thereof, in which AL seeks, in particular, annulment of the Parliament’s decision not to promote him to grade AST 8 under the 2009 promotion procedure, and compensation for the damage he considers he has suffered.

Held: Case F-93/10 AL v Parliament is removed from the register of the Tribunal. The parties are to bear the costs as agreed between them.

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)