ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
The Courts of the European Union are authorised not to tax the fees payable by the parties to their own lawyers but to determine the amount up to which that remuneration may be recovered from the party ordered to pay the costs. For the Courts to assess whether the expenses actually incurred for the purposes of the proceedings were necessary, the applicant must provide precise information. Similarly, the fixed nature of the remuneration has no effect on the Civil Service Tribunal’s assessment of the amount recoverable by way of costs, since it bases its decisions on well-established criteria laid down by case-law and precise information which the parties must provide to it. Whilst the absence of such information does not preclude the Tribunal fixing the amount of the recoverable costs on the basis of an equitable assessment, it nonetheless places it in a situation where its assessment of the applicant’s claims must necessarily be strict.

In fixing the recoverable costs, the Courts of the European Union take account of all the circumstances of the case up to point at which the order on taxation of costs is adopted, including the expenses necessarily incurred in relation to the taxation of costs proceedings.

In that regard, as is apparent from the first paragraph of Article 19 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, applicable before the Civil Service Tribunal pursuant to Article 7(1) of Annex I to that Statute, the institutions are free to have recourse to the assistance of a lawyer. The latter’s remuneration is therefore covered by the concept of expenses necessarily incurred for the purposes of the proceedings, without the institution being required to show that such assistance was objectively warranted. Therefore, whilst the fact that an institution instructed two agents and an external lawyer has no impact on the possible recoverability of those costs, since there is nothing to preclude such recovery in principle, it may have an impact on the determination of the amount of costs incurred for the purposes of the proceedings which may ultimately be recovered.

(see paras 26, 27)

See:

Orders of 23 March 2012 in Kerstens v Commission, T‑498/09 P-DEP, not published, EU:T:2012:147, paras 15 and 20, and 28 May 2013 in Marcuccio v Commission, T‑278/07 P-DEP, EU:T:2013:269, para. 14
ORDER OF THE CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL

(Second Chamber)

7 July 2011

Case F-57/10

Stefano Pedeferri and Others

v

European Commission

(Civil service – Officials – Actions – Persons claiming the status of official or staff of the European Union – Inadmissibility – Failure to respect the pre-litigation procedure)

Application: under Article 270 TFEU, applicable to the EAEC Treaty by virtue of Article 106a, by which Mr Pedeferri and 13 other salaried employees of the Istituto Vigilanza Notturna Gallarate S.r.l. ask the Tribunal to recognise their status as members of the contract staff of the Commission and specifically of the Joint Research Centre (JRC) and, accordingly, to order the Commission to pay the remuneration and other financial benefits due to them in that capacity, and to pay damages for the loss they have suffered.

Held: The action is dismissed as inadmissible. The applicants are ordered to bear their own costs and to pay the costs of the Commission.

Summary

Officials – Actions – Conditions for admissibility – Respect for the preliminary administrative procedure

(Staff Regulations, Arts 90 and 91)

Under the system of remedies established by Articles 90 and 91 of the Staff Regulations, first, an action before the Civil Service Tribunal must be brought against an act adversely affecting a person and consisting either in a decision of the appointing authority or of the authority empowered to conclude contracts of employment, or in the failure by one of those authorities to take a measure required by the Staff Regulations, and secondly, such an action is admissible only if the person concerned has previously submitted to the appointing authority or the authority empowered to conclude contracts of employment a complaint against the act adversely affecting him and if that complaint has been expressly or impliedly rejected. Furthermore, where an official or other member of staff, or even a person external to the institution, wishes the administration to take a decision concerning him, the preliminary administrative procedure must begin with a request by the person concerned pursuant to Article 90(1) of the Staff Regulations asking the appointing authority or the authority empowered to conclude contracts of employment to take the decision sought, and the rejection of that request may subsequently be the subject of a complaint.

(see para. 14)
ORDER OF THE EUROPEAN UNION CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL

(Third Chamber)

13 February 2012

Case F-123/11

Antonio Ayres de Abreu

v

European Economic and Social Committee

(Civil service — Manifest inadmissibility — Representation by a lawyer — Applicant having status of lawyer — Not possible for applicant to be represented by a lawyer who is not a third person)

Application: brought under Article 270 TFEU, applicable to the EAEC Treaty by virtue of Article 106a thereof, in which Mr Ayres de Abreu seeks, in particular, annulment of the decision of 27 April 2011 by which the European Economic and Social Committee (EESC) decided to place him on compulsory leave.

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

Summary

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

(Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 19, third and fourth paras., and Art. 21, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal, Art. 34(1), first para., and Art. 36)

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 34(1) 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 that article, 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 36 of the Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal and therefore renders the action manifestly inadmissible.

(see paras 11-13, 16, 17)

See:

5 December 1996, C-174/96 P Lopes v Court of Justice, paras 8, 10 and 11; 27 November 2007, C-163/07 P Diy-Mar Insaat Sanayi ve Ticaret and Akar v Commission, paras 25 and 26

13 January 2005, T-184/04 Sulvida v Commission, paras 4 and 8

30 October 2008, F-48/08 Ortega Serrano v Commission, confirmed on appeal by the order of the General Court of the European Union of 9 March 2010, T-583/08 P Ortega Serrano v Commission
ORDER OF THE CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL

(Second Chamber)

7 July 2011

Case F-19/11

Mario Galvan

v

European Commission

(Civil service – Person claiming the status of official or other member of staff of the European Union – Actions – Manifest inadmissibility – Failure to comply with the pre-litigation procedure)

Application: brought under Article 270 TFEU, applicable to the EAEC Treaty pursuant to Article 106a thereof, in which Mr Galvan, an employee of the Istituto Vigilanza Notturna Gallarate S.r.l., essentially asks the Tribunal to recognise his status as a member of the contract staff of the Commission, and more particularly of the Joint Research Centre (JRC), and, consequently, to order the Commission to pay the remuneration and other financial benefits which he claims are due to him in that capacity, as well as payment of damages for the harm he claims to have suffered.

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

Summary

Officials – Actions – Conditions for admissibility – Compliance with the prior administrative procedure

(Staff Regulations, Arts 90 and 91)

In the system of remedies laid down by Articles 90 and 91 of the Staff Regulations, first of all, an action before the Civil Service Tribunal must be directed against an act adversely affecting the applicant consisting either in a decision taken by the appointing authority or the authority empowered to conclude contracts of employment, or in the failure of either of those authorities to take a measure required by the Staff Regulations, and secondly, such an action is admissible only if the person concerned has first lodged a complaint against the act adversely affecting him with that authority, in accordance with Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations, and if that complaint has been rejected by express or implied decision. Furthermore, where an official or other staff member, or even a person outside the institution, seeks to secure from the administration the adoption of a decision in relation to him, the prior administrative procedure must begin with a request from the person concerned, in accordance with Article 90(1) of the Staff Regulations, asking the appointing authority or the authority empowered to conclude contracts of employment to adopt the decision he seeks; the rejection of that request may then form the subject of a complaint.

(see para. 12)
ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE EUROPEAN UNION CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL

6 June 2012

Case F‑54/12 R

Luigi Carosi

v

European Commission

(Civil service — Open competition — Non-admission to the assessment tests — Procedure for interim relief — Application for suspension of operation of a measure — Prima facie case — None — Specific conditions for admission to the competition — Professional experience)

Application: brought under Articles 278 TFEU and 157 EA and Article 279 TFEU, applicable to the EAEC Treaty pursuant to Article 106a thereof, in which Mr Carosi seeks, in particular, suspension of the decision of the selection board in open competition EPSO/AST/117/11 (‘the competition selection board’ or ‘the selection board’) not to allow him to take part in the assessment tests for that competition.

Held: The applicant’s application for interim measures is dismissed. The costs are reserved.

Summary

Officials — Competitions — Competition based on qualifications and tests — Conditions for admission — Fixing by the competition notice — Selection board’s appraisal of candidates’ professional experience — Judicial review — Limits — Competition in the secretarial field

(Staff Regulations, Annex III, Arts 2 and 5)

It is for the selection board in a competition to assess in each case whether the professional experience of each candidate corresponds to the level required by the notice of competition. It enjoys a discretion, under the provisions of the Staff Regulations concerning competition procedures, in assessing the nature and duration of the previous experience of candidates and its relevance to the post to be filled. In its review of legality, the Civil Service Tribunal must therefore confine itself to ascertaining whether the selection board’s exercise of that discretion was free from manifest errors.

In that respect, a selection board in a competition does not make a manifestly erroneous assessment in considering, when adopting a decision not to admit a candidate to a competition in the secretarial field, that a university degree and professional experience in the legal field in particular do not correspond to a diploma and professional experience in the secretarial field, respectively.

(see paras 35, 39, 40, 47)

See:

1 July 2010, F‑40/09 Časta v Commission, para. 58 and the case-law cited therein
ORDER OF THE EUROPEAN UNION CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL

(First Chamber)

2 August 2016

Anne Mommer

v

European Commission

‛Civil service — Officials — Pensions — Transfer to the EU pension scheme of pension rights acquired under other schemes — Proposal concerning additional pensionable years — Act not having an adverse effect — Action manifestly inadmissible’

Application:

under Article 270 TFEU, applicable to the EAEC Treaty pursuant to Article 106a thereof, in which Ms Anne Mommer seeks, principally, annulment of the decision of the European Commission of 16 February 2012 by which it definitively fixed, at her request, the number of pensionable years credited to the EU pension scheme resulting from the transfer of pension rights which she had acquired under other pension schemes prior to entering the service of the EU.

Held:

The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible. Each party is to bear its own costs.

Summary

Actions brought by officials — Act adversely affecting an official — Definition — Proposal concerning additional pensionable years with a view to a transfer to the EU pension scheme of pension rights acquired before entry into the service of the EU — Not included

(Staff Regulations, Art. 91(1))

A proposal concerning additional pensionable years, communicated to an official at his request with a view to the transfer to the EU pension scheme of pension rights acquired under another system, does not produce binding legal effects which directly and immediately affect the legal situation of the person to whom it is addressed by significantly altering that situation. It therefore does not constitute an act adversely affecting him for the purposes of Article 91(1) of the Staff Regulations.

(see para. 18)

See:

Judgments of 13 October 2015, Commission v Verile and Gjergji, T‑104/14 P, EU:T:2015:776, para. 73; Commission v Cocchi and Falcione, T‑103/13 P, EU:T:2015:777, para. 65; and Teughels v Commission, T‑131/14 P, EU:T:2015:778, para. 69
In the procedure for the transfer of pension rights laid down in Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations, it is the decision adopted by the appointing authority, once the capital representing the pension rights acquired by the person concerned before entering the service of the EU has actually been transferred, which constitutes an act adversely affecting him, against which he may bring an action under Article 270 TFEU and Article 91(1) of the Staff Regulations. On the other hand, a proposal concerning the crediting of pension rights, if accepted by the person concerned, does not constitute an act adversely affecting him which may be the subject of an action under Article 270 TFEU and Article 91(1) of the Staff Regulations.

Additional pensionable years may be credited only where the official concerned gives his consent to the procedure for transferring to the EU pension scheme the capital representing pension rights he has acquired previously with the external pension fund concerned, that consent being informed by the proposal for the additional pensionable years to be credited made by the appointing authority on the basis of the provisional amount of capital declared by the national pension fund concerned.

In that regard, at the stage when the proposal for the pension rights to be credited is made, the institution concerned merely undertakes to apply correctly to the situation of the official concerned Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations and the general implementing provisions. That obligation on the institution arises directly from the provisions of the Staff Regulations in question, even if the institution does not expressly give such an undertaking.

Thus, such an undertaking expressed in a proposal for pensionable years to be credited does not give rise to a fresh obligation on the institution in question nor, consequently, to a change in the legal position of the person concerned, in particular because, even where the person gives his consent to the transfer to the EU pension scheme of pension rights which he acquired under a different scheme, the institution making the proposal is not under a corresponding obligation, once the amount of capital declared by the national fund has actually been transferred, automatically to award the person concerned the number of pensionable years stated in the original proposal, in the light of which the official confirmed his intention to transfer the capital to the EU pension scheme.

(see paras 28-32)

See:

Judgments of 13 October 2015 in Commission v Verile and Gjergji, T‑104/14 P, EU:T:2015:776, paras 50, 52, 53 and 74; Commission v Cocchi and Falcione, T‑103/13 P, EU:T:2015:777, para. 66, and Teughels v Commission, T‑131/14 P, EU:T:2015:778, paras 37, 46, 48, 49, 58 and 70
ORDER OF THE EUROPEAN UNION CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL (Second Chamber)

13 May 2015 ( )

(Rectification of the judgment)

In Case F‑78/12,

ACTION brought under Article 270 TFEU, applicable to the EAEC Treaty pursuant to Article 106a thereof,

Viara Todorova Androva, an official of the Council of the European Union, residing in Rhode-Saint-Genèse (Belgium), represented by M. Velardo, lawyer,

applicant,

v

Council of the European Union, represented by J. Herrmann and M. Bauer, acting as Agents,

defendant,

supported by

European Commission, represented by J. Currall and G. Gattinara, acting as Agents,

and

Court of Auditors of the European Union, represented initially by T. Kennedy, N. Scafarto and K. Zavřelová, acting as Agents, and subsequently by N. Scafarto, acting as Agent,

interveners,

THE CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL (Second Chamber)

composed of K. Bradley (Rapporteur), President, H. Kreppel and M.I. Rofes i Pujol, Judges,

Registrar: W. Hakenberg,

makes the following

Order

1 On 29 April 2015, the Tribunal (Second Chamber) delivered its judgment in Todorova Androva v Council (F‑78/12, EU:F:2015:37).

2 The headwords of the judgment contain an obvious clerical error within the meaning of Article 122(1) of the Rules of Procedure. As such a clerical error does not concern the operative part or one of the grounds constituting the necessary support for the operative part, the judgment should be rectified of the Tribunal’s own motion, in accordance with the instructions given in the operative part of this order.

On those grounds,

THE CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL (Second Chamber)

hereby orders:

1. In the headwords of the judgment of 29 April 2015 in Todorova Androva v Council (F‑78/12, EU:F:2015:37), the reference to the Framework agreement concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP shall be amended as follows:

‘on fixed-term work’.

2. The original of this order shall be annexed to the original of the rectified judgment. A note of the order shall be made in the margin of the original of the judgment.

Luxembourg, 13 May 2015.

W. Hakenberg K. Bradley
ORDER OF THE EUROPEAN UNION CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL

(Third Chamber)

9 September 2014

CY

v

European Central Bank (ECB)

‛Death of the applicant — Reopening of the oral procedure’

Application:

pursuant to Article 36.2 of the Protocol on the Statute of the European System of Central Banks and of the European Central Bank, annexed to the EU Treaty and to the FEU Treaty, in which CY sought, in essence, first, the annulment of the decision of the Executive Board of the European Central Bank (ECB) of 18 December 2012 closing the internal administrative inquiry opened following her complaint of psychological harassment and the annulment of that inquiry and of the inquiry report drawn up once it had finished and, secondly, the grant of EUR 50 000 by way of compensation for the harm allegedly suffered by her, essentially in connection with the conduct of her line manager.

Held:

The oral procedure is reopened. The costs are reserved.

Summary

Judicial proceedings — Oral part of the procedure — Reopening — Conditions — Death of the applicant

(Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal, Art. 52(2))
39

In the present case, it should be noted, first, that a part of the fees claimed by the applicant’s lawyers, corresponding to 9 hours and 25 minutes of work, relates to the pre-litigation procedure in each of the cases in the main proceedings. However, as is apparent from the case file, the two complaints had been drafted by the applicant himself and not by his lawyers. In any event, in proceedings concerning the taxation of costs, save in exceptional circumstances, fees owed for services provided by a lawyer at the stage of the pre-litigation procedure do not constitute recoverable costs (see, in particular, judgment of 28 October 2010 in Cerafogli v ECB, F‑23/09, EU:F:2010:138, paragraph 63). It follows that the work allegedly carried out by the applicant’s lawyers in that regard cannot be recognised as costs to be regarded as recoverable. Therefore, of the 142 hours and 10 minutes of work in respect of which payment is claimed, only 132 hours and 45 minutes correspond to costs incurred for the purpose of the procedure before the Tribunal in the cases in the main proceedings.
21

It must first be observed in the present case that the EEA relied, in adopting the contested decision, on the fact that the post of ‘legal adviser for the GMES programme’, which the applicant had held up that that point, was going to be abolished after the expiry of her three-year contract, owing to the termination of the GISC project. There is no evidence in the file to show that such a ground is vitiated by an error of fact. Although the applicant submits that a member of the contract staff was recruited from 1 February 2013 in order to take on the tasks that she had previously carried out, the documents in the file, in particular the job-description of that member of staff, show that, on the contrary, that member of staff was employed in order to carry out other tasks, namely those of a ‘project manager for GMES in situ and Arctic cooperation’, replacing another member of the contract staff who had resigned on 16 January 2013. Moreover, the fact that the member of the contract staff recruited on 1 February 2013 carried out part of the tasks for which the applicant had responsibility during the latter’s long period of sick leave is not in itself sufficient to prove that that member of the contract staff was recruited to replace her.
ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE FIRST CHAMBER OF THE EUROPEAN UNION CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL

9 July 2015

Antonio Vecchio

v

ECSEL Joint Undertaking

‛Amicable settlement of the proceedings — Article 90(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, in which Mr Vecchio sought annulment of the decision of 28 May 2014 by which the ECSEL Joint Undertaking, succeeding the Artemis Joint Undertaking, rejected his complaint of 28 January 2014 in which the applicant sought to challenge the content of his staff report for 2012 and, in particular, the appeal assessor’s refusal to amend the content of that report.

Held:

Case F‑75/14 is removed from the register of the Tribunal as a result of the agreement concluded between Mr Vecchio and the ECSEL Joint Undertaking. The ECSEL Joint Undertaking is to bear its own costs and is ordered to pay the costs incurred by Mr Vecchio in accordance with the terms of 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. 90(1))

(see paras 3, 5)