Seised of an appeal under Article 9 of Annex I to the Staff Regulations of the Court of Justice of the European Union, the General Court may, pursuant to Article 129 of the Rules of Procedure, at any time of its own motion consider whether there exists any bar to proceeding with a case. As the conditions of admissibility of an action under Articles 90 and 91 of the Staff Regulations are a matter of public policy, it is for the Court, where appropriate, to examine them of its own motion, provided that it has first invited the parties to submit their observations.

The existence of an act adversely affecting the official or agent concerned within the meaning of Article 90(2) and Article 91(1) of the Staff Regulations is an essential condition of admissibility for any action brought by officials and agents against the EU institution employing them. In that regard, it is important to underline that only measures which come from the competent authority and include a definitive position adopted by the administration which produces binding legal effects capable of directly and immediately affecting the applicant’s interests by bringing about a distinct change in his legal position constitute acts adversely affecting him.

Thus, the transfer of a seat of an agency of the Union is the result of an agreement of the Member States and of an act of the EU legislature. Consequently, the authority empowered to conclude contracts of employment in the decision concerning the relocation of its seat merely recalled the principle of the reassignment of its staff as was decided by common agreement of the Member States of 8 October 2013 and by Article 4 of Decision 2005/681, as amended by Regulation No 543/2014. In so doing, it did not bring about a distinct change in the appellants’ legal situation, which actually resulted from the common agreement of the Member States.

Regarding the appellants’ emoluments, the determination of the correction coefficient applicable to the staff of an agency is not left to the discretion of its authority empowered to conclude contracts of employment, but is the consequence of the living conditions of the place of employment. It follows that the application to the appellants of the correction coefficient provided for Hungary instead of the one provided for the United Kingdom is simply an automatic consequence of the common agreement of the Member States of 8 October 2013 and Article 1 of Regulation No 543/2014, first, and of the first paragraph of Article 64 of the Staff Regulations, second.

Moreover, the contested decision provides for the possibility of individual negotiations on the date for the taking-up of duties at the new seat of the agency and of the resignation notice between the director of the agency and those staff members not wishing to join that seat. Thus, in adopting the contested decision, the authority empowered to conclude contracts of employment defined a general line of conduct along which it envisaged, pursuant to the relevant provisions, subsequently adopting individual decisions declaring, as the case may be, the resignation of agents who have not taken up their duties in a timely manner at the new seat, account being taken of each of their particular situations.

(see paras 49, 50, 60, 61, 64, 69, 72, 75)