ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
ORDER OF THE EUROPEAN UNION CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL

(First Chamber)

10 September 2014

Anne Esneau-Kappé

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 Esneau-Kappé following the judgment in Esneau-Kappé v Europol (F‑42/09, EU:F:2010:67).

Held:

The total amount of costs to be reimbursed by the European Police Office to Ms Esneau-Kappé 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 applicable during the above period, increased by two 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
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. When ruling on an application for taxation of costs, it is not obliged to take account of any national scales of lawyers’ fees or any agreement in that regard between the party concerned and his agents or advisers.

In the absence of Union provisions laying down fee scales, the court must make an unfettered assessment of the facts of the case, taking into account the purpose and nature of the proceedings, their significance from the point of view of Union law, the difficulties presented by the case, the amount of work generated by the case for the agents or advisers involved and the financial interest which the parties had in the proceedings.

In that regard, it may be inferred from the fact that a lawyer submitted an application, attended the hearing and drew up various documents that that lawyer did indeed perform acts and services necessary for the purpose of the proceedings before the Civil Service Tribunal.

As regards the determination of the amount of costs incurred for those necessary services, evidence of payment of the costs whose recovery is sought is not a precondition for taxation by the Tribunal of the recoverable costs.

(see paras 24, 25, 33-35)

Order of 4 July 2013 in Kronofrance v Germany and Others, C-75/05 P-DEP and C-80/05 P-DEP, EU:C:2013:458, para. 30

Orders of 10 November 2009 in X v Parliament, F-14/08 DEP, EU:F:2009:149, para. 22; 26 April 2010 in Schönberger v Parliament, F-7/08 DEP, EU:F:2010:32, para. 24; 27 September 2011 in De Nicola v EIB, F-55/08 DEP, EU:F:2011:155, paras 40 and 41; 2 July 2013 in Martinez Erades v EEAS, F-64/12 DEP, EU:F:2013:111, para. 21; 14 November 2013 in Cuallado Martorell v Commission, F-96/09 DEP, EU:F:2013:186, para. 28, and 3 July 2014 in Bogusz v Frontex, F-5/12 DEP, EU:F:2014:179, paras 30 to 33 and the case-law cited therein
ORDER OF THE EUROPEAN UNION CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL

(Second Chamber)

23 November 2012

Case F‑122/11

Dragos-Lucian Vacarescu

v

European Commission

(Civil service — Delay — Manifest inadmissibility)

Application: brought under Article 270 TFEU, applicable to the EAEC Treaty by virtue of Article 106a thereof, in which Mr Vacarescu seeks annulment of the Commission’s decision of 18 April 2011 refusing to pay him the daily allowance provided for in Article 10 of Annex VII du Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union (‘the Staff Regulations’).

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

Summary

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

(Staff Regulations of Officials, Arts 90 and 91)

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. 14)

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, F‑13/09 Peláez Jimeno v Parliament, para. 18
ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE EUROPEAN UNION CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL

24 May 2011 ( )

(Civil Service – Interim proceedings – Joinder)

In Case F‑5/11 R,

APPLICATION under Articles 278 TFEU and 157 EA, and Article 279 TFEU, applicable to the EAEC Treaty by virtue of Article 106a thereof,

Peter Mariën, a member of the contract staff of the European Commission, residing in Kabul (Afghanistan), represented by B. Theeuwes and F. Pons, lawyers,

applicant,

v

European Commission, represented by G. Berscheid and B. Eggers, acting as Agents,

defendant,

and in Case F‑15/11 R,

APPLICATION under Articles 278 TFEU and 157 EA, and Article 279 TFEU, applicable to the EAEC Treaty by virtue of Article 106a thereof,

Peter Mariën, a member of the contract staff of the European Commission, residing in Kabul (Afghanistan), represented by B. Theeuwes and F. Pons, lawyers,

applicant,

v

European External Action Service (EEAS), represented by H. Cameron and G.‑J. van Hegelsom, acting as Agents,

defendant,

THE PRESIDENT OF THE CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL

makes the following

Order

1 By application against the European Commission, received at the Registry of the Tribunal by email on 21 January 2011 (the original being lodged on 31 January 2011) and registered as Case F‑5/11 R, Mr Mariën seeks, inter alia, suspension of the decision of 11 January 2011 by which the Head of the European Union Delegation in Kabul (Afghanistan) asked him to move from the hotel in which he was staying temporarily and into the secure compound recently built for Delegation staff.

2 By application against the European External Action Service (EEAS), received at the Registry of the Tribunal on 18 February 2011 by email (the original being lodged on 24 February 2011) and registered as Case F‑15/11 R, Mr Mariën submits the same claims as those submitted in the application for interim relief registered as Case F‑5/11 R.

3 By letters of 14 April 2011, the President of the Tribunal invited the parties to submit their observations on the joinder of Cases F‑5/11 R and F‑15/11 R for the purposes of the interim order.

4 By letter of 29 April 2011, the applicant informed the President of the Tribunal that he had no objection to Cases F‑5/11 R and F‑15/11 R being joined. The Commission, however, by letter of 29 April 2011, raised an objection to the joinder, on the ground that the action in the main proceedings is manifestly inadmissible, in so far as it should have been brought against the EEAS and not against the Commission. The EEAS has not submitted any observations on the joinder envisaged by the President of the Tribunal.

5 In view of the connection between Cases F‑5/11 R and F‑15/11 R, it is appropriate that they be joined for the purposes of the interim order, on the basis of Article 46(1) of the Rules of Procedure.

On those grounds,

THE PRESIDENT OF THE CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL

hereby orders:

Cases F‑5/11 R Mariën v Commission and F‑15/11 R Mariën v EEAS are joined for the purposes of the interim order.

Luxembourg, 24 May 2011.

W. Hakenberg P. Mahoney
ORDER OF THE EUROPEAN UNION CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL

(Third Chamber)

12 December 2013

Luigi Marcuccio

v

European Commission

‛Civil service — Decision to retire an official on grounds of invalidity — Annulment by the Tribunal on the ground of failure to state reasons — Request for implementation of the judgment — Request for reinstatement — Judgment of the Tribunal set aside — No interest in bringing proceedings — Article 266 TEU — Non-contractual liability of the institution — Action in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly lacking any foundation in law’

Application:

under Article 270 TFEU, applicable to the EAEC Treaty pursuant to Article 106a thereof, in which Mr Marcuccio seeks, in essence, annulment of the decision by which the European Commission rejected his request of 25 March 2011 for reinstatement and compensation for the harm suffered.

Held:

The action is dismissed as being in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly lacking any foundation in law. Mr Marcuccio is to bear his own costs and is ordered to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.

Summary

Actions brought by officials — Interest in bringing proceedings — Need for a vested and present interest — Assessment as at the date on which the action is brought — Action capable of securing a benefit for the applicant (Staff Regulations, Arts 90 and 91) Actions brought by officials — Judgment annulling a measure — Effects — Obligation to implement — Scope (Art. 266 TFEU)
ORDER OF THE EUROPEAN UNION CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL

(Second Chamber)

20 July 2016

Luigi Marcuccio

v

European Commission

‛Civil service — Procedure — Taxation of costs’

Application:

for taxation of costs, brought by the European Commission following the Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 14 May 2013 in Marcuccio v Commission (F‑4/12, EU:F:2013:61).

Held:

The total amount of costs to be reimbursed by Mr Luigi Marcuccio to the European Commission in respect of the recoverable costs of Case F‑4/12 is fixed at EUR 1500. That sum shall carry interest from the date of service of this order until the date of payment, at a rate calculated on the basis of the rate fixed by the European Central Bank for its main refinancing transactions, as applicable on the first day of the month in which payment falls due, plus three and a half percentage points.

Summary

Judicial proceedings — Costs — Taxation — Taxation on the basis of precise information provided by the applicant or, in default, on the basis of an equitable assessment by the EU judicature — Fixed nature of remuneration of lawyer — Irrelevant to the court’s discretion

(Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal, Art. 105(c))

In order to determine whether the costs actually incurred for the purposes of legal proceedings were necessary, precise information must be supplied by the applicant. Similarly, the fixed nature of the remuneration has no effect on the 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.

(see para. 28)

See:

Order of 17 February 2004 in DAI v ARAP and Others, C‑321/99 P-DEP, EU:C:2004:103, para. 23

Orders of 31 March 2011 in Tetra Laval v Commission, T‑5/02 DEP and T‑80/02 DEP, EU:T:2011:129, para. 68, and 28 May 2013 in Marcuccio v Commission, T‑278/07 P-DEP, EU:T:2013:269, para. 16
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 or the authority empowered to conclude contracts of employment, as the case may be, 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 or the authority empowered to conclude contracts of employment 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 36-40)

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

(First Chamber)

18 September 2014

Giorgio Lebedef

v

European Commission

‛Civil service — Preliminary issues — Manifest inadmissibility’

Application:

under Article 270 TFEU, applicable to the EAEC Treaty pursuant to Article 106a thereof, in which Mr Lebedef seeks annulment of his appraisal report for the period from 1 July 2001 to 31 December 2002 and, as a subsidiary plea, annulment of the merit points awarded to him during the 2003 promotion procedure.

Held:

The action is dismissed as being manifestly inadmissible. Mr Lebedef is to bear his own costs and is ordered to pay those incurred by the European Commission.

Summary

Actions brought by officials — Interest in bringing proceedings — Assessment as at the date on which the action is brought — Action for annulment of a career development report brought by an official who has retired before bringing the action — Inadmissibility

(Staff Regulations, Arts 90 and 91)

In order to bring a valid action under Articles 90 and 91 of the Staff Regulations, an applicant must have a personal, vested and present interest in the annulment of the contested measure at the time when the action is brought and it must continue until the final decision, failing which there will be no need to adjudicate.

As regards a legal interest in bringing an action against an appraisal report, while it is true that the report plays an important part in the progress of the career of the official or other staff member concerned, in principle it affects the interest of the person assessed only until the termination of his service, so that, after his service has terminated, the official or other staff member is, in principle, no longer entitled to bring an action, save for the purposes of establishing the existence of a particular fact justifying a current, personal interest in obtaining the annulment of the report in question.

(see paras 17, 19)

See:

judgment in Marenco and Others v Commission, 81/74 to 88/74, EU:C:1975:139, para.6

judgment in Turner v Commission, T‑49/91, EU:T:1992:72, para. 24; orders in N v Commission, T‑97/94, EU:T:1998:270, para. 26, expressly confirmed on appeal by the order in N v Commission, C‑21/99 P, EU:C:1999:508, para. 24; Ross v Commission, T‑147/04, EU:T:2005:255, paras 24, 25 and 27; and Attey and Others v Council, T‑118/11, T‑123/11 and T‑124/11, EU:T:2012:270, para. 28

judgment in Solberg v EMCDDA, F‑148/12, EU:F:2013:154, paras 16 and 18
ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE FIRST CHAMBER OF THE EUROPEAN UNION CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL

28 January 2016

Wieslawa Goch

v

Council of the European Union

‛Transfer of pension rights — Judgments of the General Court delivered during the proceedings — Discontinuance by the applicant — Removal from the register — Allocation of costs’

Application:

under Article 270 TFEU, applicable to the EAEC Treaty pursuant to Article 106a thereof, in which Ms Goch sought in essence annulment of the decision of the General Secretariat of the Council of the European Union of 23 May 2012 containing a proposal to transfer the applicant’s pension rights under Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union. In support of her action, the applicant pleaded inter alia that Article 9 of the general implementing provisions relating to Articles 11 and 12 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations, adopted by that institution on 11 October 2011, was unlawful.

Held:

Case F‑21/13 is removed from the register of the Tribunal. Each party shall bear its own costs.

Summary

Judicial proceedings — Discontinuance by the applicant — Removal from the register

(Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal, Arts 84 and 103(5))

(see para. 6)
ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE FIRST CHAMBER OF THE EUROPEAN UNION CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL

15 January 2015

Case F‑30/14

Herman Speyart

v

European Commission

(Civil service — Disciplinary proceedings — Disciplinary penalty — Failure to declare receipt of the ‘Kinderbijslag’ as an allowance of the same nature from another source — Withdrawal of the applicant from proceedings — Removal from the register)

Application: under Article 270 TFEU, applicable to the EAEC Treaty pursuant to Article 106a thereof, in which Mr Speyart sought annulment of the decision of the European Commission of 18 June 2013 by which it imposed on him the disciplinary penalty of permanent downgrading by one grade on the ground that he had failed to declare that he had been receiving, in addition to the family allowances for dependent children under Article 67(2) of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union, a national allowance of the same nature, the ‘Kinderbijslag’, since 1 April 1997, which had resulted in the applicant and his wife, also an EU official, receiving a total overpayment of EUR 39 380.

Held: Case F‑30/14 is removed from the Register of the Tribunal. Mr Speyart is to bear his own costs and is ordered to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.

Summary

Judicial proceedings — Costs — Withdrawal not justified by the conduct of the other party

(Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal, Arts 84 and 103(5))
ORDER OF THE EUROPEAN UNION CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL

(First Chamber)

14 July 2015

Silvana Roda

v

European Commission

‛Civil service — Remuneration — Survivor’s pension — Article 27 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations — Right of the divorced spouse of the deceased official — Maintenance paid by the deceased official — Capping of the survivor’s pension — Action manifestly unfounded’

Application:

under Article 270 TFEU, applicable to the EAEC Treaty pursuant to Article 106a thereof, in which Ms Roda seeks an order that the European Commission pay her, by way of the survivor’s pension to which she is entitled, and from the date of her former spouse’s death, 35% of the amount of the retirement pension paid to him at the time of his death, plus interest in arrears.

Held:

The action is dismissed as manifestly unfounded. Ms Roda is to bear her own costs and is ordered to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.

Summary

Judicial proceedings — Decision taken by way of reasoned order — Conditions — Action manifestly inadmissible or manifestly lacking any foundation in law — Scope (Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal, Art. 81) Officials — Pensions — Survivor’s pension — Maintenance fixed by an agreement between the former spouses — Capping of the survivor’s pension (Staff Regulations, Annex VIII, Arts 18 and 27)
ORDER OF THE EUROPEAN UNION CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL

(Second Chamber)

20 July 2016

Rosalba Polizzi

v

European Commission

‛Civil service — Officials — Pensions — Transfer of national pension rights — Proposal concerning additional pensionable years — Act not having an adverse effect — Application inadmissible — Application for a decision not going to the substance of the case — Article 83 of the Rules of Procedure’

Application:

under Article 270 TFEU, applicable to the EAEC Treaty pursuant to Article 106a thereof, by which Ms Rosalba Polizzi seeks, principally, annulment of the European Commission’s proposal of 17 February 2014, determining, at her request, the number of pensionable years to be credited under the European Union pension scheme as a result of the transfer of pension rights which she had acquired under a national scheme before entering the Commission’s service.

Held:

The action is dismissed as inadmissible. Ms Rosalba Polizzi shall bear her own costs and is ordered to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.

Summary

Actions brought by officials — Acts adversely affecting an official — Meaning — 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), and Annex VIII, Art. 11(2))

A proposal concerning additional pensionable years, sent to an official with a view to a transfer to the EU pension scheme of pension rights acquired under another scheme, does not produce binding legal effects directly and immediately affecting the legal situation of the person concerned by bringing about a distinct change in that situation. Accordingly, it does not constitute an act having adverse effect, within the meaning of Article 91(1) of the Staff Regulations.

(see para. 16)

See:

Judgments of 13 October 2015 in 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