ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
ORDER OF THE CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL (First Chamber)

15 July 2008

Case F-28/08

Michel Pouzol

v

Court of Auditors of the European Communities

(Civil service – Officials – Pensions – Transfer of pension rights acquired before entry into the Communities’ service – Confirmatory decisions – Inadmissibility)

Application: brought under Articles 236 EC and 152 EA, in which Mr Pouzol seeks, in particular, annulment of the Court of Auditors’ decision of 29 November 2007 rejecting his complaint against the decisions of 10 May 2007 establishing the additional years of Community pensionable service resulting from the transfer of his pension rights acquired in France under supplementary pension schemes, and recognition, in respect of that transfer, of 10 years, 3 months and 24 days of additional Community pensionable service.

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

Summary

Officials – Actions – Act adversely affecting an official – Definition – Purely confirmatory measure – Not included

(Staff Regulations, Arts 90(2) and 91(1))

An action for annulment of a measure merely confirming a previous decision which was not challenged within the prescribed period is inadmissible. A decision is a mere confirmation of an earlier decision where it contains no new factors as compared with the earlier measure and is not preceded by any re-examination which is genuine and detailed, or based on new factors, of the situation of the person to whom the earlier measure was addressed. The correction of a material error not affecting the actual content of the measure does not, in itself, constitute a new decision.

(see paras 45, 47, 60)

See:

54/77 Herpels v Commission [1978] ECR 585, paras 11 to 14; 23/80 Grasselli v Commission [1980] ECR 3709, para 18; 294/84 Adams and Others v Commission [1986] ECR 977, paras 14 to 16; C-30/93 AC‑ATEL Electronics Vertriebs [1994] ECR I‑2305, para. 24

T‑191/96 and T‑106/97 CAS Succhi di Frutta v Commission [1999] ECR II‑3181, para. 60; T-83/99 to T-85/99 Ripa di Meana and Others v Parliament [2000] ECR II‑3493, paras 33 and 34

F-78/06 Suhadolnik v Court of Justice [2006] ECR-SC I-A-1-191 and II-A-1-795, paras 31 and 32
ORDER OF THE CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL

(First Chamber)

29 October 2009

Case F-94/08

Luigi Marcuccio

v

Commission of the European Communities

(Civil service – Officials – Enforcement of a judgment – Reimbursement of costs – Administration’s intention to deduct from the official’s invalidity pension – No act adversely affecting the official – Action for damages – Manifest inadmissibility)

Application: brought under Articles 236 EC and 152 EA, in which Mr Marcuccio essentially seeks annulment of the Commission’s note of 28 March 2008 informing him of its intention to make a deduction from his invalidity pension in order to obtain payment of the costs incurred in earlier proceedings.

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

Summary

Officials – Actions – Act adversely affecting an official – Concept – Note from the administration informing the official concerned of its intention to make a deduction from his invalidity pension – Not included

(Staff Regulations, Arts 90 and 91)

A note from the administration informing an official of its intention to make a deduction from his invalidity pension, if he does not apply to the Community courts for taxation of costs which he was ordered to pay in an earlier case, does not constitute the adoption of a definitive position by the administration and may not be regarded as having directly and immediately affected his interests by bringing about a distinct change in his legal position.

(see paras 21, 24)
ORDER OF THE CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL

(First Chamber)

4 June 2009

Case F-56/08

Jorge de Britto Patricio-Dias

v

Commission of the European Communities

(Civil service – Officials – Joint Sickness Insurance Scheme – Primary cover for dependent children by the Joint Sickness Insurance Scheme – Lack of complaint – Manifest inadmissibility)

Application: brought under Articles 236 EC and 152 EA, in which Mr de Britto Patricio-Dias contests the Commission’s decision refusing his dependent children primary cover under the European Community institutions’ Joint Sickness Insurance Scheme.

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

Summary

1. Action for annulment – Actionable measures – Definition – Measures capable of affecting a given legal position – Action brought solely against the statement of reasons for a measure – Inadmissibility

(Art. 230 EC)

2. Officials – Actions – Prior administrative complaint – None – Inadmissibility

(Staff Regulations, Arts 90 and 91)

1. Only measures which give rise to binding legal effects capable of directly and immediately affecting the applicant’s interests by significantly altering his legal position constitute acts or decisions the annulment of which may be sought. An action for annulment is not available, on the other hand, against the grounds for such acts, since they do not constitute the necessary support for the operative part of an act adversely affecting a person’s interests.

(see para. 15)

See:

T-138/89 NBV and NVB v Commission [1992] ECR II‑2181, para. 31

2. Under Article 91(2) of the Staff Regulations, appeals against an act adversely affecting an official lie only if the appointing authority has previously had a complaint submitted to it pursuant to Article 90(2) within the required time limit, and if that complaint has been rejected expressly or by implication.

(see para. 16)

See:

T-108/99 Reggimenti v Parliament [1999] ECR-SC I‑A‑243 and II‑1205, para. 19
I-A-1  - 269ORDER OF THE CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL
(Second Chamber)
10 July 2009
Case F-15/09
Valentina Hristova
v
Commission of the European Communities
(Civil service — Competitions — Compliance with a  
judgment — Admissibility)
Full text in the language of the case (English) .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . II-A-1 - 1459
Application:  brought under Articles 236 EC and 152 EA, in which Ms Hristova 
requests the Tribunal to order proper measures to ensure 
c
ompliance with the judgment of the Tribunal of 25 November 
2008 in Case F-50/07 Hristova v Commission [2009] ECR-SC   
I-A-1-377 and II-A-1-2071 .
Held:  The application is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible . The 
applicant is to pay her own costs .
I-A-1  - 270SUMMARY — CASE F-15/09
Summary
Officials — Actions — Purpose — Direction to the administration — Inadmissibility
(Staff Regulations, Art. 91)
In the context of an action brought under Article 91 of the Staff Regulations, the 
Community court may not make declarations of principle or findings nor give directions to a Community institution without encroaching upon the powers 
of the executive
. That principle renders inadmissible heads of claim seeking an 
order requiring a Community institution to adopt the measures necessary to 
ensure compliance with a judgment by which a decision has been annulled .
(see para . 15)
See:
T
-156/89 Valverde Mordt v Court of Justice  [1991] ECR  II-407, para . 150; 
T-583/93 P v Commission [1995] ECR-SC I-A-137 and II-433, paras 17 and 18
F-4/08 H
ambura v Parliament [2009] ECR-SC  I-A-1-65 and  II-A-1-343,  
para . 32
ORDER OF THE EUROPEAN UNION CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL

(First Chamber)

10 September 2014

Maria Teresa Visser-Fornt Raya

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 Visser-Fornt Raya following the judgment in Visser-Fornt Raya v Europol (F‑35/09, EU:F:2010:61).

Held:

The total amount of costs to be reimbursed by the European Police Office to Ms Visser-Fornt Raya 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 during the above-mentioned period, increased by two percentage 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 CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL (First Chamber)

16 December 2010

Case F-25/10

AG

v

European Parliament

(Civil service — Officials — Dismissal at the end of the probationary period — Manifest inadmissibility — Action brought out of time — Notice by registered letter with acknowledgement of receipt)

Application: brought under Article 270 TFEU, applicable to the EAEC Treaty pursuant to Article 106 thereof, in which AG seeks, in particular, annulment of the Parliament’s decision of 14 May 2009 dismissing him at the end of his probationary period, and of the Parliament’s decision of 21 December 2009 rejecting his complaint against that first decision, as well as an order that the Parliament compensate for the loss she alleges she has suffered as a result of those decisions.

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

Summary

Officials — Actions — Time-limits — Point from which time starts to run — Notification — Definition

(Staff Regulations, Art. 90(2))

Where a decision is notified by registered letter with acknowledgement of receipt, its addressee is deemed to be apprised of that decision by signing the acknowledgement of receipt. Where a registered letter cannot be signed for by its addressee because he is not at home when the postman calls, and then takes no action or does not collect the letter within the period for which it is usually held by the postal service, it must be considered that the decision was duly notified to its addressee on the date on which that period expired.

However, the presumption that the addressee received notification of the decision at the expiry of the period for which a registered letter is usually held by the postal service is not absolute. Its application is subject to the provision of evidence by the administration of proper notification by registered letter, in particular through the leaving of a notice of attempted delivery at the latest address supplied by the addressee. Furthermore, that presumption is not irrebuttable. The addressee may seek to prove that he was prevented, in particular by illness or by reasons beyond his control, from taking effective cognizance of the notice of attempted delivery.

However, an absence solely for holiday reasons cannot be regarded as a legitimate ground preventing that presumption of notification. If that presumption could be overturned purely for reasons of personal convenience, the addressee of the decision could, to a certain extent, choose the point at which he considers he was actually apprised of it.

The presumption of notification in no way prejudices the right to an effective remedy, or in particular the predictability of the rules that should govern access to the Union judicature. The time-limit of 3 months and 10 days for bringing an action is long enough for a situation of absence for holiday reasons not to prejudice the possibilities of remedy.

(see paras 41-44, 48, 50)
ORDER OF THE EUROPEAN UNION CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL

(First Chamber)

2 August 2016

Giorgio Cocchi

and

Nicola Falcione

v

European Commission

‛Civil service — Duty to provide assistance — Article 24 of the Staff Regulations — Rejection of the request for assistance — Pensions — Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations — Application for transfer of pension rights — Withdrawal of the application for transfer of pension rights during the proceedings — No need to adjudicate on the rejection of the request for assistance’

Application:

under Article 270 TFEU, applicable to the EAEC Treaty pursuant to Article 106a thereof, in which Mr Giorgio Cocchi and Mr Nicola Falcione seek, first, annulment of the decisions of 9 March 2011 by which the European Commission rejected their requests for assistance, submitted in connection with their applications for transfer to the EU pension scheme of the pension rights they had acquired under the Italian pension scheme, and, second, an order that the Commission pay them damages.

Held:

There is no need to adjudicate in Case F‑134/11 Cocchi and Falcione v Commission. Mr Giorgio Cocchi, Mr Nicola Falcione and the European Commission are each to bear their own costs.

Summary

Actions brought by officials — Interest in bringing proceedings — Assessment at the time when the action was lodged — Subsequent disappearance of the interest in bringing proceedings — No need to adjudicate

(Staff Regulations, Arts 90 and 91)

For an official to be able to take further steps in an action for annulment of a decision, he must retain a personal interest in having the contested decision annulled even after the action is brought, it being assumed with such an interest that the action, if successful, is capable of procuring him an advantage.

Where an official has withdrawn his application for transfer of pension rights acquired prior to entering the service of the EU with the agreement of the institution concerned, any judgment annulling the decision rejecting his request for assistance made in connection with his application for transfer of pension rights would not bring him any administrative advantage, regardless of whether a request for assistance made by an official in order to defend himself against the actions of his own institution is legally admissible.

In that regard, in the absence of a present interest in continuing the proceedings, there is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action.

(see paras 33, 34)

See:

Order of 2 December 2013, Pachtitis v Commission, F‑49/12, EU:F:2013:197, para. 28 and the case-law cited therein
ORDER OF THE EUROPEAN UNION CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL

(First Chamber)

2 December 2014

Erik Simpson

v

Council of the European Union

‛Civil service — Procedure — Taxation of costs’

Application:

for taxation of costs brought by Mr Simpson in accordance with Article 92(1) of the Rules of Procedure in the version in force at the time (‘the former Rules of Procedure’) following the judgment of the Tribunal of 12 December 2013 in Simpson v Council (F‑142/11, EU:F:2013:201, on appeal before the General Court, Case T‑130/14 P).

Held:

The total amount of costs to be reimbursed by the Council of the European Union to Mr Simpson by way of recoverable costs in Case F‑142/11 is fixed at EUR 8 600, to be increased by any value added tax due on that amount.

Summary

Judicial proceedings — Costs — Taxation — Recoverable costs — Definition — Value added tax — Inclusion in the case of a non-taxable person

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

An applicant who is not subject to value added tax cannot recover the value added tax that may have been paid on the services invoiced by his lawyer. Thus, the value added tax that may have been paid on fees held to be necessary represents for the applicant costs incurred for the purpose of the proceedings within the meaning of Article 91(b) of the former Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal.

(see para. 34)

See:

Order in De Nicola v EIB, T‑7/98 DEP, T‑208/98 DEP and T‑109/99 DEP, EU:T:2004:217, para. 37

Order in Missir Mamachi di Lusignano v Commission, F‑50/09 DEP, EU:F:2012:147, para. 31

ORDER OF THE EUROPEAN UNION CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL

(First Chamber)

2 December 2014

Erik Simpson

v

Council of the European Union

‛Civil service — Procedure — Taxation of costs’

Application:

for taxation of costs brought by Mr Simpson in accordance with Article 92(1) of the Rules of Procedure in the version in force at the time (‘the former Rules of Procedure’) following the judgment of the Tribunal of 12 December 2013 in Simpson v Council (F‑142/11, EU:F:2013:201, on appeal before the General Court, Case T‑130/14 P).

Held:

The total amount of costs to be reimbursed by the Council of the European Union to Mr Simpson by way of recoverable costs in Case F‑142/11 is fixed at EUR 8 600, to be increased by any value added tax due on that amount.

Summary

Judicial proceedings — Costs — Taxation — Recoverable costs — Definition — Value added tax — Inclusion in the case of a non-taxable person

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

An applicant who is not subject to value added tax cannot recover the value added tax that may have been paid on the services invoiced by his lawyer. Thus, the value added tax that may have been paid on fees held to be necessary represents for the applicant costs incurred for the purpose of the proceedings within the meaning of Article 91(b) of the former Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal.

(see para. 34)

See:

Order in De Nicola v EIB, T‑7/98 DEP, T‑208/98 DEP and T‑109/99 DEP, EU:T:2004:217, para. 37

Order in Missir Mamachi di Lusignano v Commission, F‑50/09 DEP, EU:F:2012:147, para. 31
5

To justify the order for costs against the Council, the Tribunal relied on the following matters, set out in paragraphs 40, 41 and 42 of the judgment in Case F‑142/11: ‘40 Under Article 87(1) of the [former] Rules of Procedure, without prejudice to the other provisions of Chapter 8 of Title 2 of those rules, the unsuccessful party is to be ordered to pay the costs if they have been applied for in the successful party’s pleadings. Under Article 87(2), the Tribunal may, if equity so requires, decide that an unsuccessful party is to pay only part of the costs or even that that party is not to be ordered to pay any. 41 First of all it must be pointed out that a decision on costs made pursuant to Article 86 of the [former] Rules of Procedure determines only who should bear the costs, not the amount of the costs to be recovered. The latter issue is to be determined, in the event of any dispute, under the procedure provided for in Article 92(1) of the [former] Rules of Procedure (see, to that effect, order of 20 January 1995 in [Werner v Commission, T‑124/93, EU:T:1995:8], paragraph 10). Consequently, the applicant’s application seeking that the order to pay costs cover also the payment of interest at the rate of 8% is inadmissible. 42 It follows from the grounds set out in the present judgment that it is the Council for the main part which has been unsuccessful. Furthermore, in his pleadings the applicant has expressly applied for the Council to be ordered pay the costs. Since the circumstances of this case do not warrant application of the provisions of Article 87(2) of the [former] Rules of Procedure, the Council must bear its own costs and be ordered to pay the costs incurred by the applicant.’
ORDER OF THE EUROPEAN UNION CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL

(First Chamber)

12 December 2012

Case F‑117/12

AD

v

European Commission

(Civil service — Delay — Manifest inadmissibility)

Application: Action brought under Article 270 TFEU, applicable to the EAEC Treaty pursuant to Article 106a thereof, whereby AD seeks, first, annulment of the decisions of 4 November 2011 and 23 November 2011 of the European Commission refusing, respectively, to make payment for a possible return journey for his partner and to confer the status of a member of the staff of the delegation on his long-term unmarried partner and, second, an order that the Commission pay him damages for the non-material and material harm which he claims to have sustained, which is provisionally evaluated at one euro.

Held: The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible. The applicant is ordered to bear his own costs.

Summary

1. Actions brought by officials — Time-limits — Mandatory — To be considered of the Tribunal’s own motion

(Staff Regulations, Arts 90 and 91)

1. The periods for lodging complaints and bringing actions referred to in Articles 90 and 91 of the Staff Regulations are matters of public policy and cannot be left to the discretion of the parties or the Tribunal, which must ascertain, of its own motion if need be, whether they have been complied with.

(see para. 5)

See:

29 June 2000, C‑154/99 P Politi v European Training Foundation, para. 15

15 January 2009, T‑306/08 P Braun-Neumann v Parliament, para. 36

12 May 2010, T‑13/09 Peláez Jimeno v Parliament, para. 18; 17 March 2011, F‑107/10 AP v Court of Justice, para. 5