ORDER OF THE EUROPEAN UNION CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL

(Third Chamber)

15 July 2015

Fernando De Esteban Alonso

v

European Commission

‛Civil service — Article 24 of the Staff Regulations — Request for assistance — Criminal proceedings before a national court — Joinder of Commission in bringing a civil action — Action manifestly unfounded’

Application:

under Article 270 TFEU, applicable to the EAEC Treaty pursuant to Article 106a thereof, in which Mr De Esteban Alonso seeks annulment of the decision of the appointing authority of the European Commission of 21 November 2014 rejecting the complaint he had brought against the Commission’s decision of 6 May 2014 rejecting his request for assistance under Article 24 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union (‘the Staff Regulations’). He also seeks an order that the Commission pay him the provisional sum of EUR 17242.51.

Held:

The action is dismissed as manifestly unfounded. Mr De Esteban Alonso is to bear his own costs and is ordered to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.

Summary

Actions brought by officials — Assessment of the legality of the contested measure in the light of the law and facts existing at the time when it was adopted

The purpose of Article 24 of the Staff Regulations is to provide officials and other servants with protection both at the present time and in the future in order to enable them to carry out their duties better in the general interest of the service. An institution’s duty to provide assistance is therefore intended both to protect its staff and to safeguard its own interests, and is thus based on the premise of shared interests. Consequently, the administration cannot be required to assist an official who is suspected of having seriously breached his professional obligations and is thereby liable to disciplinary proceedings. Similarly, Article 24 of the Staff Regulations requires the administration to intervene with all the necessary vigour when faced with an incident which is incompatible with the good order and tranquillity of the service. More specifically, the duty to provide assistance laid down in Article 24 of the Staff Regulations is concerned with the defence of officials, by their institution, against acts of third parties and not against acts of the institution itself, the review of which falls under other provisions of the Staff Regulations. In that regard, in a situation where an institution is a civil party in criminal proceedings brought against an official by national authorities for acts capable of having constituted fraud of the Communities’budget, the institution is pursuing an interest which conflicts with that of the official concerned. Consequently, and regardless of the alleged role of third parties in those proceedings, the institution can, without infringing Article 24 of the Staff Regulations, refuse to provide the official with assistance in the criminal proceedings against him on account of the steps taken or accusations made in the context of those proceedings. (see paras 32, 33) See: Judgments of 17 December 1981 in Bellardi-Ricci and Others v Commission, 178/80, EU:C:1981:310, para. 23; and 12 June 1986 in Sommerlatte v Commission, 229/84, EU:C:1986:241, para. 19 Judgment of 27 June 2000 in K v Commission, T‑67/99, EU:T:2000:169, para. 35 Judgments of 23 November 2010 in Wenig v Commission, F‑75/09, EU:F:2010:150, para. 49; 20 July 2011 in Gozi v Commission, F‑116/10, EU:F:2011:124, para. 12; and 26 March 2015 in CW v Parliament, F‑124/13, EU:F:2015:23, para. 37 and the case-law cited therein, on appeal before the General Court of the European Union, Case T‑309/15 P

The legality of a measure must be assessed in the light of the circumstances of law and of fact existing at the time when the contested measure was adopted. That principle in judicial proceedings means that any subsequent development which is favourable to the person concerned may not, in any event, be taken into account when assessing the legality of that measure. (see para. 34) See: Judgment of 13 March 2013 in Inglewood and Others v Parliament, T‑229/11 and T‑276/11, EU:T:2013:127, para. 72 and the case-law cited therein