JUDGMENT OF THE EUROPEAN UNION CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL

(Second Chamber)

30 June 2015

Caspar Curdt-Christiansen

v

European Parliament

‛Civil service — Officials — Remuneration — Annual travel expenses — Article 7(3) and Article 8 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations — Fixing of the place of origin and the centre of interests — Request for the place of origin to be changed — Concept of centre of interests — Change of residence of a family member — Period elapsed between the amendment of the centre of interests and the request for the place of origin to be changed — Exceptional nature of the revision’

Application:

under Article 270 TFEU, applicable to the EAEC Treaty pursuant to Article 106a thereof, in which Mr Curdt-Christiansen seeks annulment of the decision of the European Parliament rejecting his request that the centre of his interests be changed from Montreal (Canada) to Singapore and his place of origin consequently be fixed at Larnaca (Cyprus).

Held:

The action is dismissed. Mr Curdt-Christiansen is to bear his own costs and is ordered to bear the costs incurred by the European Parliament.

Summary

Officials — Place of origin — Centre of interests — Amendment in the course of official’s career — Submission of a request for the place of origin to be changed — Duty to act within a reasonable time — Exceptional nature of the change

(Staff Regulations, Art. 90(1); Annexe VII, Art. 7(3), first para.)

There is an obligation to act within a reasonable period in all cases where, in the absence of any written rule, the principles of legal certainty or protection of legitimate expectations preclude EU institutions and natural or legal persons from being free to act without any time constraints, thereby engendering a risk, amongst other things, of undermining the stability of legal positions already acquired.

In particular, in actions likely to result in a financial burden for the institutions, observance by the official concerned of a reasonable period for submitting a request under Article 90(1) of the Staff Regulations, such as a request for his place of origin to be changed, is also based on a concern to protect public finances. That concern implies that the official has a duty to exercise due care by submitting his request within a reasonable period from the point at which he becomes aware of a decision or substantial new fact liable to alter his legal position.

Moreover, and in any event, by reason of the exceptional nature of any decision to amend the centre of an official’s interests resulting from the first paragraph of Article 7(3) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations, even where the request satisfies the formal conditions for granting an amendment to his place of origin, the appointing authority may refuse to accede to that request on the basis of the exceptional nature of the decision granting the amendment to the centre of interests.

(see paras 37, 38, 44)

See:

Judgments of 5 October 2004 in Eagle and Others v Commission, T-144/02, EU:T:2004:290, para. 57, and 12 July 2007 in Eagle and Others v Commission, T-144/02, EU:T:2007:222, paras 57 and 59 and the case-law cited therein

Judgment of 8 February 2011 in Skareby v Commission, F-95/09, EU:F:2011:9, paras 42-46

JUDGMENT OF THE EUROPEAN UNION CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL

(Second Chamber)

30 June 2015

Caspar Curdt-Christiansen

v

European Parliament

‛Civil service — Officials — Remuneration — Annual travel expenses — Article 7(3) and Article 8 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations — Fixing of the place of origin and the centre of interests — Request for the place of origin to be changed — Concept of centre of interests — Change of residence of a family member — Period elapsed between the amendment of the centre of interests and the request for the place of origin to be changed — Exceptional nature of the revision’

Application:

under Article 270 TFEU, applicable to the EAEC Treaty pursuant to Article 106a thereof, in which Mr Curdt-Christiansen seeks annulment of the decision of the European Parliament rejecting his request that the centre of his interests be changed from Montreal (Canada) to Singapore and his place of origin consequently be fixed at Larnaca (Cyprus).

Held:

The action is dismissed. Mr Curdt-Christiansen is to bear his own costs and is ordered to bear the costs incurred by the European Parliament.

Summary

Officials — Place of origin — Centre of interests — Amendment in the course of official’s career — Submission of a request for the place of origin to be changed — Duty to act within a reasonable time — Exceptional nature of the change

(Staff Regulations, Art. 90(1); Annexe VII, Art. 7(3), first para.)

There is an obligation to act within a reasonable period in all cases where, in the absence of any written rule, the principles of legal certainty or protection of legitimate expectations preclude EU institutions and natural or legal persons from being free to act without any time constraints, thereby engendering a risk, amongst other things, of undermining the stability of legal positions already acquired.

In particular, in actions likely to result in a financial burden for the institutions, observance by the official concerned of a reasonable period for submitting a request under Article 90(1) of the Staff Regulations, such as a request for his place of origin to be changed, is also based on a concern to protect public finances. That concern implies that the official has a duty to exercise due care by submitting his request within a reasonable period from the point at which he becomes aware of a decision or substantial new fact liable to alter his legal position.

Moreover, and in any event, by reason of the exceptional nature of any decision to amend the centre of an official’s interests resulting from the first paragraph of Article 7(3) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations, even where the request satisfies the formal conditions for granting an amendment to his place of origin, the appointing authority may refuse to accede to that request on the basis of the exceptional nature of the decision granting the amendment to the centre of interests.

(see paras 37, 38, 44)

See:

Judgments of 5 October 2004 in Eagle and Others v Commission, T-144/02, EU:T:2004:290, para. 57, and 12 July 2007 in Eagle and Others v Commission, T-144/02, EU:T:2007:222, paras 57 and 59 and the case-law cited therein

Judgment of 8 February 2011 in Skareby v Commission, F-95/09, EU:F:2011:9, paras 42-46