Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Procedure - Procedure before the Court of First Instance - Possibility for a single Judge to hear and determine a case - Conditions - Cases raising issues as to the legality of an act of general application excluded - Definition of cases raising questions concerning the legality of an act of general application - Internal rules of an institution concerning the criteria applicable to appointment in grade and classification in step on recruitment - Included

(Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Arts 11(1), first para., and 14(2)(1) and (2)(a), and (3))

2. Officials - Recruitment - Appointment in grade and classification in step - Account taken of professional experience - Date taken as the dies ad quem for the calculation of the length of professional experience - Actual date of taking up duties - Rule for calculating length of professional experience applicable to members of the temporary staff different from that applicable to officials - Breach of the principle of equal treatment

(Staff Regulations, Arts 3 and 31)

Summary

1. Under the first paragraph of Article 11(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, cases before the Court are, in principle, heard by Chambers. It is by way of an exception that Article 14(2)(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance provides that some specific categories of case, among them Community staff cases, may be heard and determined by the Judge-Rapporteur sitting as a single Judge where, having regard to the lack of difficulty of the questions of law or fact raised, to the limited importance of those cases and to the absence of other special circumstances, they are suitable for being so heard and determined.

However, Article 14(2)(2)(a) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance provides that it is not possible to delegate to a single Judge cases which raise issues as to the legality of an act of general application. That provision is an exception to the first exception and requires a return to the original principle. It cannot therefore be interpreted restrictively.

An act has general application, within the meaning of that provision, if it applies to an objectively determined situation and entails legal effects for categories of persons regarded generally and in the abstract.

A case raises a question relating to the legality of an act of general application and cannot therefore be delegated to a single Judge, to say the least, when an action for annulment is brought against such an act or when a plea of illegality is raised against it which is reasoned and substantiated by evidence. In that situation, a case may not be delegated to a single Judge. A case also raises an issue as to the legality of an act of general application when such a question is raised indirectly. In that case, the single Judge must, in accordance with Article 14(3) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, find that the conditions justifying delegation of the case are no longer satisfied and refer the case back to the Chamber.

Accordingly, the decision of an institution laying down the criteria applicable to classification in grade and step on recruitment, which applies to an objectively determined situation and entails legal effects for categories of persons regarded generally and in the abstract, must therefore be considered to be an act of general application within the meaning of Article 14(2)(2)(a) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance. Although internal measures adopted by the administration may not be regarded as rules of law which the administration is always bound to observe, they nevertheless form rules of practice from which the administration may not depart without giving the reasons which led it to do so, which must be compatible with the principle of equal treatment. Such measures constitute an act of general application and the officials and other staff concerned may invoke their illegality in support of an action against the individual decisions taken on the basis of the measures.

( see paras 25-27, 31-33, 35-36 )

2. Under Article 3 of the Staff Regulations, the date on which the appointment of an official takes effect is not to be prior to the date on which he takes up his duties. Since an official may obtain training or exercise professional activities up to the day prior to the date on which he takes up his post, it is the latter date which should be taken as the dies ad quem for calculating the length of professional experience which may be taken into consideration for classification in grade.

Article 31 of the Staff Regulations should therefore be interpreted as meaning that, in so far as professional experience is taken into consideration for the purpose of classification in grade, the proper last date taken for calculating the length of professional experience must be the day preceding the day (dies ad quem) on which the official takes up his post.

It follows that a decision of a Community institution on the criteria applicable to appointment in grade and classification in step on recruitment, inasmuch as it establishes a dies ad quem corresponding to the date of the offer of employment, cannot be applicable to the recruitment of officials. The same conclusion applies in respect of recruitment of members of the temporary staff, inasmuch as the institution has said that that decision is to apply by analogy. Such a decision, in so far as it takes as the dies ad quem the date on which the offer of employment is made and not that on which the person concerned takes up his post, provides, for members of the temporary staff and without objective reason, a rule for calculating the length of professional experience taken into account which differs from that applicable to officials under Article 31 of the Staff Regulations. By so doing, it infringes the principle of equal treatment.

( see paras 46-49, 54 )