ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
ORDER OF THE EUROPEAN UNION

CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL (Third Chamber)

17 November 2015

Antonio Ayres de Abreu

v

European Economic and Social Committee (EESC)

‛Civil service — Manifest inadmissibility — Representation by a lawyer — Applicant being a lawyer — Impossibility of an applicant being represented by a lawyer who is not a third party’

Application:

under Article 270 TFEU, applicable to the EAEC Treaty pursuant to Article 106a thereof, by which Mr Ayres de Abreu seeks, essentially, annulment of the decision of 10 February 2015 by which the European Economic and Social Committee (EESC) rejected his request for retirement.

Held:

The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible. Mr Ayres de Abreu shall bear his own costs.

Summary

Procedure — Application initiating proceedings — Formal requirements — Application lodged without the assistance of a lawyer — Applicant having the status of lawyer authorised to practise before a national court — No effect — Inadmissibility

(Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 19(3) and (4); Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal, Arts 45(2), first para., and 50)

It follows from the third paragraph of Article 19 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, and in particular the term ‘represented’, as well as from the first paragraph of Article 45(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal, that in order to bring an action before the Tribunal, a party, within the meaning of those articles, must use the services of a third person authorised to practise before a court of a Member State or of a State which is a party to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, and that only an application signed by that third person may be validly referred to the Tribunal. Since no derogation from or exception to that obligation is provided for by the Court’s Statute or the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure, the submission of an application signed by the applicant himself, even if he is a lawyer authorised to practise before a national court, cannot be sufficient for the purpose of bringing an action.

Such a breach is not one which may be rectified under Article 50 of the Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal and therefore renders the action manifestly inadmissible.

(see paras 6-8, 12, 13)

See:

Orders of 5 December 1996 in Lopes v Court of Justice, C‑174/96 P, EU:C:1996:473, paragraphs 8-11, and , 27 November 2007 in Diy-Mar Insaat Sanayi ve Ticaret and Akar v CommissionC‑163/07 P, EU:C:2007:717, paragraphs 25 and 26

Order of 13 January 2005 in Sulvida v Commission, T‑184/04, EU:T:2005:7, paragraphs 4 and 8

Orders of 30 October 2008 in Ortega Serrano v Commission, F‑48/08, EU:F:2008:131, paragraph 41, affirmed on appeal by Order of 9 March 2010 in Ortega Serrano v Commission, T‑583/08 P, EU:T:2010:79, and 13 February 2012 in Ayres de Abreu v EESC, F‑123/11, EU:F:2012:17, paragraph 17
ORDER OF THE EUROPEAN UNION CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL

(Single Judge)

24 February 2016

Vassiliki Labiri

v

European Economic and Social Committee (EESC)

‛Amicable settlement of the proceedings — Article 91(1) of the Rules of Procedure — Agreement of the parties at the initiative of the Tribunal — Removal from the register’

Application:

under Article 270 TFEU, applicable to the EAEC Treaty pursuant to Article 106a thereof, in which Ms Labiri essentially seeks, first, annulment of the implied decision of 20 February 2015 rejecting her complaint against the wrongful failure of the appointing authority of the European Economic and Social Committee (EESC) to take measures to comply with the judgment of 26 February 2013 in Case F‑124/10Labiri v EESC (EU:F:2013:21) and, second, an order that the EESC pay compensation for the non-material harm allegedly suffered.

Held:

Case F‑33/15 is removed from the register of the Tribunal as a result of the agreement concluded between Ms Labiri and the European Economic and Social Committee (EESC). Ms Labiri and the European Economic and Social Committee (EESC) are to bear the 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. 91(1))

(see para. 7)
ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE THIRD CHAMBER OF THE

EUROPEAN UNION CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL

17 December 2015

Alkis Diamantopoulos

v

European External Action Service (EEAS)

‛Amicable settlement on the initiative of the Tribunal — Removal from the register’

Application:

under Article 270 TFEU, applicable to the EAEC Treaty pursuant to Article 106a thereof, by which Mr Diamantopoulos seeks annulment of the decision of 29 April 2014 of the European External Action Service (EEAS) not to promote him to grade AD 12 in the 2012 promotion procedure. He also seeks an award of damages.

Held:

Case F‑30/15, Diamantopoulos v EEAS, is removed from the Tribunal register. The parties are to bear the costs in accordance with the agreement reached between them.

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, Arts 84 and 91(1))

(see para. 4)
ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE THIRD CHAMBER

OF THE EUROPEAN UNION CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL6 June 2016

Sven Matzke

v

European Commission

‛Amicable settlement of the proceedings — Article 91(1) of the Rules of Procedure — Agreement between the parties on the initiative of the Tribunal — Removal from the register’

Application:

under Article 270 TFEU, applicable to the EAEC Treaty pursuant to Article 106a thereof, in which the applicant seeks annulment of the decision of the Brussels settlements office of the Joint Sickness Insurance Scheme of 25 August 2014 refusing to extend recognition that the applicant’s daughter suffers from a serious illness and the decision of the appointing authority of 5 March 2015 rejecting his complaint, and compensation for the material and non-material damage allegedly suffered.

Held:

Case F‑87/15 is removed from the register of the Tribunal following the agreement made between Mr Matzke and the European Commission. The parties are to bear the costs according to the terms of their agreement.

Summary

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

(Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal, Art. 91(1))

(see para. 5)
27

Indeed, if the Tribunal were bound to accept the applicant’s reasoning, any explicit decision of a competition selection board, such as the decision of 15 April 2015 and the review decision of 11 June 2015, containing either an inadequate statement of reasons or no statement of reasons (and thus necessitating a substantive examination) would be liable at any moment to become the subject of a request for an additional statement of reasons enabling candidates for the competition in question to set themselves a new time-limit, running from the receipt of that additional statement of reasons, for bringing an action under Article 270 TFEU and Article 91 of the Staff Regulations or, where appropriate, lodging a complaint within the three-month time-limit laid down in the Staff Regulations, even though the fact that a competition selection board’s decision contains an inadequate statement of reasons or no statement of reasons is actually a plea which may be raised in an action or, where appropriate, a complaint (see order of 22 April 2015 in ED v ENISA, F‑105/14, EU:F:2015:33, paragraph 41 and the case-law cited).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 165/36

Action brought on 22 May 2006 — Pereira Sequeira v Commission

(Case F-65/06)

(2006/C 165/74)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Rosa Maria Pereira Sequeira (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: T. Bontinck and J. Feld, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

— annul the individual decision relating to a change of category, effective as from 16 August 2005, notified on 19 September 2005;

— order the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant is a successful candidate of the internal competition COM/PC/04, published before the new Staff Regulations entered into force. She was appointed an official thereunder and classified in grade C*1, that is, the same grade in which she had been classified during her last temporary agent contract. Although previously she had enjoyed a more advantageous classification, she had been downgraded to grade C*1 prior to her appointment as an official.

In support of her action, the applicant alleges breach of Articles 31 and 62 of the Staff Regulations and Articles 5 and 2 of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations.

The applicant also alleges violation of the principle of protection of legitimate expectations and the principle of protection of acquired rights.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 64/65

Action brought on 8 October 2007 — Tomas v Parliament

(Case F-116/07)

(2008/C 64/107)

Language of the case: Lithuanian

Parties

Applicant: Stanislovas Tomas (Kerkrade, Netherlands) (represented by: M. Michalauskas, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

— Annul the decision of the appointing authority to dismiss the applicant to the extent that it has not been annulled by the decision to reject the complaint, or annul the decision to reject the complaint to the extent that it has not annulled the dismissal decision;

— Order the defendant to pay to the applicant the sum of EUR 125 000 as compensation for the non-material and material damage suffered by the applicant;

— Order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant seeks annulment of the decision by which the appointing authority decided to dismiss him and compensation for the damage he suffered. In support of his action, he contends that there has been abuse of office by the appointing authority, infringement of several provisions of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communities and infringement of Article 19 of the European Code of Good Administrative Behaviour, infringement of the principles applicable to the rights of the defence and to good administration and infringement of the Parliament's duty to have regard for the welfare of officials.
—

annul the Commission decision of 21 December 2006, rejecting the applicant's candidature for the vacant post of head of representation of the Commission to Greece and appointing another candidate to that post;
—

Annul the decisions of the appointing authority of the European Parliament not to grant the applicants the daily subsistence allowance laid down in Article 10 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations;
—

Annul the individual release from service decisions adopted in favour of the representatives of l'Alliance and/or of the FFPE on the basis of that Protocol or of the calculation of 26 May 2006 of the representation of the trade union or professional organisations on the basis of the results of the elections of May 2006 of the Brussels local section and confirmed by the Protocol of 19 December 2006;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 64/70

Action brought on 21 January 2008 — Aayhan and Others v European Parliament

(Case F-10/08)

(2008/C 64/116)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Laleh Aayhan (Strasbourg, France) and Others (represented by: R. Blindauer, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

The subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the European Parliament's decision of 25 October 2007 rejecting the complaint brought by the applicants on 21 June 2007 for the purpose of having all the fixed-term contracts between them and the Parliament converted into a single contract for an indefinite period.

Form of order sought

— Annul the decision of the Secretary General of the European Parliament, the Appointing Authority, of 25 October 2007 expressly rejecting the complaint lodged with the Parliament on 27 June 2007;

— Consider all the fixed-term contracts between the applicants and the European Parliament as a single contract for an indefinite period, continuing in effect beyond 1 January 2007;

— Re-employ all the applicant members of staff on the basis of contracts for an indefinite period with the European Parliament;

— Grant each applicant member of staff an indemnity in respect of all the periods worked since the beginning of their employment equivalent to the right to paid leave which they have acquired through their work;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 107/44

Action brought on 26 February 2008 — Bennet and Others v OHIM

(Case F-19/08)

(2008/C 107/78)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Kelly-Marie Bennet (Mutxamel, Spain) and Others (represented by: G. Vandersanden, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM)

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

First, annulment of the notices of open competitions OHIM/AD/02/07 and OHIM/AST/02/07, in so far as those notices have the effect of taking away from the applicants any possibility of their names appearing on the reserve list, the applicants being obliged to participate as a result of the termination clause unlawfully inserted to that end in their contracts for an indefinite period. Second, damages for the non-material loss suffered by the applicants.

Form of order sought

— Annul the notices of open competitions OHIM/AD/02/07 and OHIM/AST/02/07;

— Order the defendant to make good the non-material loss suffered by the applicants, assessed on a equitable basis and subject to a minimum of EUR 25 000 per applicant;
—

order the Court of Auditors to make good the non-material damage suffered of EUR 10 000 and to make good the material damage, consisting of the difference between the salary received by the applicant since the effective date of the last promotion decisions, announced on 3 April 2007, and that to which he would have been entitled had he been promoted on the effective date of those decisions;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 158/26

Action brought on 31 March 2008 — Liotti v Commission

(Case F-38/08)

(2008/C 158/48)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Amerigo Liotti (Senningerberg, Luxembourg) (represented by: F. Frabetti, lawyer)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the applicant's career development report for the period from 1 January 2006 to 31 December 2006.

Form of order sought

— Annul the applicant's career development report (REC/CDR) for the reference period 1.1.2006 to 31.12.2006;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 116/35

Action brought on 28 February 2008 — Pouzol v Court of Auditors

(Case F-28/08)

(2008/C 116/68)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Michel Pouzol (Combaillaux, France) (represented by: D. Grisay, I. Andoulsi and D. Piccininno, lawyers)

Defendant: European Court of Auditors

The subject-matter and description of the proceedings

First, annulment of the Court of Auditors' decision of 29 November 2007, as well as the proposals made to the applicant on 10 May 2007 concerning the transfer of his pension rights acquired in France and, consequently, recognition of the applicant's entitlement to an additional 6 years, 10 months and 1 day of pensionable service, making an overall entitlement of 10 years, 3 months and 24 days of pensionable service, to be reflected in an addition to his pension. Secondly, an order that the defendant pay compensation for the financial and non-material loss suffered by the applicant.

Form of order sought

— Annul the Court of Auditors' decision of 29 November 2007 and the proposals made to the applicant on 10 May 2007;

— recognise the applicant's entitlement to an additional 6 years, 10 months and 1 day of pensionable service, making an overall entitlement of 10 years, 3 months and 24 days of pensionable service;

— order the Court of Auditors to reflect that entitlement to years of pensionable service by an addition to the applicant's pension of EUR 1 232,32 per month;

— order the Court of Auditors to pay compensation for the financial loss suffered by the applicant, assessed to the date of lodgement of the present application at the sum of EUR 32 040,32 (that is the applicant's loss of income of EUR 1 232,32 per month from the date of his being compulsorily retired on 1 January 2006 to 1 March 2008);

— order the Court of auditors to pay compensation for the non-material loss suffered by the applicant during more than 14 years, the quantum of damages to be determined later by agreement between the parties;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 197/37

Action brought on 9 June 2008 — Palazzo v Commission

(Case F-57/08)

(2008/C 197/72)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Armida Palazzo (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis, E. Marchal, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Application for, first, a declaration that Article 4 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communities is illegal and, secondly, for annulment of the Appointing Authority's decision concerning the calculation of the credited contribution years of pension rights acquired by the applicant as a member of the local staff.

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

— Declare that Article 4 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communities is illegal;

— Annul the Appointing Authority's decision 24 October 2007 concerning the calculation of the credited contribution years of the pension rights acquired by the applicant as a member of the local staff;
—

Annul the decision of the Court of Auditors of 20 March 2006 refusing to allocate to the applicant the survivor's pension laid down in Article 16(1) of Regulation 2290/77 and the subsequent decision of 28 September 2006;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 285/56

Action brought on 6 August 2008 — Knöll v Europol

(Case F-69/08)

(2008/C 285/101)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Applicant: Brigitte Knöll (Hochheim, Germany) (represented by: P. de Casparis, lawyer)

Defendant: European Police Office (Europol)

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Application for annulment of the decision of 4 October 2007, by which Europol informed the applicant that there was no possibility of offering her a permanent post.

Form of order sought

The applicant claims the Tribunal should:

— Annul the decision of 4 October 2007, by which the defendant informed the applicant that there was no possibility of offering her a permanent post, the decision of 29 April 2008 rejecting the complaint brought against the first decision and the decision of 12 June 2008 which is part of the extension of that of 4 October 2007;
—

Annul the Commission decisions fixing the applicants' conditions of employment as members of the temporary staff within the meaning of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Communities and, more specifically, inasmuch as they limited the length of their contract;
—

Order the defendant to pay damages for non-material and material loss and for the detriment to the applicant's career which he assesses, without prejudice to claiming a greater or a lesser sum in the course of the procedure, at the global sum of EUR 25 000, and that, taking account of the inadequate enforcement of the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 13 September 2007, the finding of a serious misuse of powers and of the conditions in which that new contested appointment occurred;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 313/59

Action brought on 13 October 2008 — Wenig v Commission

(Case F-80/08)

(2008/C 313/107)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Fritz Harald Wenig (Woluwe Saint-Pierre, Belgium) (represented by: G.-A. Dal, D. Voillemot, D. Bosquet, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Application for annulment of the Commission's decision to suspend the applicant and to order EUR 1 000 per month to be withheld from his remuneration.

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

— Annul the Commission's decision of 18 September 2008 to suspend the applicant and to order EUR 1 000 per month to be withheld from his remuneration, pursuant to Articles 23 and 24 of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communities;
—

Annul the decision of the appointing authority not to promote the applicant to grade AST 7 for the 2008 promotion year and, so far as necessary, the decisions to promote officials of lesser merit to that grade;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 69/54

Action brought on 2 February 2009 — Fares v Commission

(Case F-6/09)

(2009/C 69/121)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Soukaïna Fares (Berchem-Sainte-Agathe, Belgium) (represented by: L. Vogel, lawyer)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Application for annulment of the decision to classify the applicant in function group III, grade 8.

Form of order sought

The applicant claims the Tribunal should:

— Annul the decision adopted by the Authority Authorised to Conclude Contracts on 17 October, by which it rejected the complaint brought by the applicant on 21 June 2008 seeking annulment of the decision classifying the applicant in function group III, at grade 8, and applying for entitlement for classification at grade 9, with effect on the same date;

— So far as necessary, also annul the original decision, by which the applicant was classified in function group III, at grade 8;
—

annul the decision of 12 June 2008 by which the defendant indicated to the applicant that it was unable to offer him a permanent position, along with the complaint decision of 7 January 2009 rejecting the applicant’s submissions against the decision of 12 June 2008;
—

Declare that the applicant has a right to the installation allowance laid down in Article 5(1) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations plus default interest from the date at which the indemnity was due until the date of actual payment at the interest rate applied by the European Central Bank to its main refinancing operations during the period concerned plus two percentage points;
—

Declare to be unlawful and, accordingly, annul the decision of the appointing authority of 2 April 2009 in so far as it is unlawful and manifestly unfounded in fact and in law, and any subsequent act and/or decision taken prior to that decision, which is connected or consequential to it, and in particular the decision of 14 November 2008 issued by PMO4;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 180/63

Action brought on 15 April 2009 — van Heuckelom v Europol

(Case F-43/09)

2009/C 180/117

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Applicant: Carlo van Heuckelom (the Hague, the Netherlands) (represented by: J. Damminghs and D Dane, lawyers)

Defendant: European Police Office (Europol)

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the decision of 14 July 2008 awarding the applicant a single step of classification in grade and the decision of 19 January 2009 rejecting the complaint brought against the first decision.

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

— annul the decision of 19 January 2009 rejecting the applicant’s complaint against the decision of 14 July 2008, and annul also that latter decision of 14 July 2008 awarding the applicant a singe step from 1 April 2008;
—

Order the Commission to pay to the applicant the sum of EUR 3 000 as damages to make good the non-material loss which he suffered as a result of its injurious and vexatious behaviour and the infringement of the principle of legitimate expectations which led to a failure to take account of his right to an effective remedy;