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

(First Chamber)

24 April 2013

Case F‑88/11

BX

v

European Commission

(Civil service — Open competition — Competition EPSO/AD/148/09 — Failure to include the applicant in the reserve list)

Application: under Article 270 TFEU, applicable to the EAEC Treaty pursuant to Article 106a thereof, in which BX seeks, first, the annulment of the decision of the selection board in open competition EPSO/AD/148/09 (‘the selection board’) not to include him in the reserve list for competition EPSO/AD/148/09, secondly, the annulment of the decision rejecting his complaint, thirdly, the amendment of the reserve list, and, lastly, an order that the European Commission pay damages assessed, on equitable principles, at EUR 7 000, as compensation for the non-material harm allegedly suffered, and pay the costs.

Held: The action is dismissed. BX is to bear his own costs and is ordered to pay the costs incurred by the Commission.

Summary

Officials — Competitions — Assessment of candidates’ abilities — Questions asked during the oral test — Selection board’s discretion — Judicial review — Limits

(Staff Regulations, Arts 90 and 91; Annex III)

The assessments made by a selection board in a competition when it evaluates the knowledge and abilities of candidates and also the decisions whereby the selection board determines that a candidate has failed a test constitute the expression of a value judgment. They fall within the wide discretion enjoyed by the competition selection board and are amenable to review by the European Union judicature only where there has been a flagrant breach of the rules governing the work of the competition selection board. In addition, the competition selection board is required to ascertain whether the candidates possess the knowledge and the professional experience necessary to perform the duties of the post advertised in the notice of competition. It is also required to make a comparative examination of the candidates’ knowledge and abilities so as to retain those most suited to the duties to be carried out. As regards, in particular, the oral tests in a competition, the selection board’s discretion is further widened by the freedom and uncertainty characterising this type of test, which is, by its very nature, less standardised than the written test and the content of which may vary depending on the experience and personality of the different candidates and on the answers they give to the selection board’s questions. It follows that the selection board does not exceed the bounds of its wide discretion, having regard to the limited time of an oral test, in restricting the time an applicant is allowed to prepare his answer and in asking him to give a spontaneous response.

(see paras 38-39, 60-61)

See:

23 March 2000, T‑95/98 Gogos v Commission, para. 36; 14 July 2000, T‑146/99 Texeira Neves v Court of Justice, para. 42; 7 February 2002, T‑193/00 Felix v Commission, para. 36; 5 April 2005, T‑336/02 Christensen v Commission, para. 25; 14 July 2005, T‑371/03 Le Voci v Council, para. 102
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 adversely affecting him. In the case of acts or decisions adopted by a procedure involving several stages, and particularly where they are the culmination of an internal procedure, it is in principle only those measures which definitively determine the position of the administration upon the conclusion of that procedure which are open to challenge and not intermediate measures whose purpose is to prepare the final decision. Acts preparatory to a decision do not adversely affect officials and an applicant may rely on defects in acts prior to the decision and closely linked to it only in the context of an action challenging the decision adopted at the end of the procedure.

The opinion of the Committee of Inquiry of the European Investment Bank which is competent under the Policy on Dignity at Work constitutes an act preparatory to the final decision adopted by the President of the EIB. Since the Committee’s opinion is consequently not open to challenge as such, claims for its annulment must be rejected as inadmissible.

However, the unlawfulness of the opinion of the Committee of Inquiry may be relied on in support of claims for annulment of the final decision adopted by the President of the EIB. It follows from the internal rules entitled ‘Policy on Dignity at Work’, adopted by the European Investment Bank and referred to in Article 3.6 of the EIB’s Staff Code of Conduct, that the opinion of the Committee of Inquiry is a substantive procedural requirement and that, consequently, failure to comply with that requirement as a result of factual or procedural irregularities is a defect which renders the decision of the President of the EIB adopted on the basis of that opinion unlawful.

(see paras 142, 144, 145)

judgment in D v EIB, T-275/02, EU:T:2005:81, paras 43 to 46 and the case-law cited therein

judgment in Donati v ECB, F-63/09, EU:F:2012:193, para. 139
JUDGMENT OF THE EUROPEAN UNION CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL

(First Chamber)

5 February 2013

Case F-25/12

Paul-Henri Presset

v

European Commission

(Civil service — Remuneration — Daily subsistence allowance — Conditions for granting)

Application: brought under Article 270 TFEU, applicable to the EAEC Treaty pursuant to Article 106a thereof, whereby Mr Presset requests the Tribunal to annul the decision whereby the European Commission refused to pay him the daily subsistence allowance.

Held: The action is dismissed. The applicant is to bear his own costs and is ordered to pay the costs incurred by the Commission.

Summary

Officials — Reimbursement of expenses — Daily subsistence allowance — Purpose

(Staff Regulations, Art. 20; Annex VII, Art. 10(1))

The daily subsistence allowance is intended to compensate an official for the expense and inconvenience occasioned by the need to change residence or to establish provisional residence at his place of employment while maintaining, also on a provisional basis, his residence at the place where he was recruited or previously employed.

(see para. 31)

See:

30 January 1974, 148/73 Louwage v Commission, para. 25; 5 February 1987, 280/85 Mouzourakis v Parliament, para. 9

10 July 1992, T-63/91 Benzler v Commission, para. 20; 12 December 1996, T-137/95 Mozzaglia v Commission, para. 46; 12 December 1996, T-74/95 Monteiro da Silva v Commission, para. 53; 20 August 1998, T-132/97 Collins v Committee of the Regions, para. 41; 2 May 2001, T-104/00 Cubeta v Commission, para. 38; 15 July 2004, T-180/02 and T-113/03 Gouvras v Commission, para. 163
JUDGMENT OF THE EUROPEAN UNION CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL

(Second Chamber)

21 November 2013

Josiane Roulet

v

European Commission

‛Civil service — Remuneration — Article 66 of the Staff Regulations — Former member of the temporary staff at Grade AD 12 — Recruitment as an official at Grade AD 6 — Payment of remuneration equivalent to that paid to an official at Grade AD 12 — Manifest error — Recovery of undue payments under Article 85 of the Staff Regulations’

Application:

under Article 270 TFEU, applicable to the EAEC Treaty pursuant to Article 106a thereof, in which, by an application received by the Tribunal Registry on 9 July 2012, registered as Case F‑72/12, Ms Roulet requests the Tribunal to annul the decision of the European Commission, as evidenced by the note of 20 December 2011, to recover the sum of EUR 172 236.42 under Article 85 of the Staff Regulations, and, in the alternative, to grant her compensation for the harm suffered, and, by an application received by the Tribunal Registry on 3 February 2013, registered as Case F‑10/13, Ms Roulet requests the Tribunal to annul the Commission’s decision of 28 March 2012 in so far as it rejects her claim for compensation of 13 January 2012 and to order the Commission to pay her compensation of EUR 172 236.42 or, in the alternative, a lesser sum for the harm suffered.

Held:

The actions in Joined Cases F‑72/12 and F‑10/13 are dismissed. Ms Roulet is to bear her own costs and is ordered to pay those incurred by the European Commission.

Summary

Officials — Recovery of undue payments — Conditions — Patent overpayment — Criteria (Staff Regulations, Art. 85) Actions brought by officials — Conditions for admissibility — Objection of lis pendens — Actions for damages — Identical claim for compensation in a previous action found inadmissible — No lis pendens
JUDGMENT OF THE EUROPEAN UNION CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL

(First Chamber)

11 February 2014

Case F‑65/12

Enrico Maria Armani

v

European Commission

(Civil service — Remuneration — Family allowances — Entitlement to the dependent child allowance — Dependent child — Child of the applicant’s wife)

Application: under Article 270 TFEU, applicable to the EAEC Treaty pursuant to Article 106a thereof, in which Mr Armani seeks annulment of the decision of the European Commission not to grant him entitlement to a dependent child allowance in respect of his wife’s child.

Held: The decision of 17 August 2011, by which the European Commission refused to recognise Mr Armani’s entitlement to a dependent child allowance in respect of his wife’s child, is annulled. The action is dismissed as to the remainder. The European Commission is to bear its own costs and is ordered to pay those incurred by Mr Armani.

Summary

Officials — Remuneration — Family allowances — Dependent child allowance — Conditions for granting — Actual maintenance — Concept

(Staff Regulations, Annex VII, Art. 2(2))

The concept of actual maintenance of a child, appearing in Article 2(2), first subparagraph, of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations, means actual responsibility for all or part of the child’s essential needs, in particular in relation to board and lodging, clothing, education and medical care and costs.

Consequently, where an official takes actual responsibility for all or part of the essential needs of his spouse’s child he must be considered to be actually maintaining that child and, as a result, having that child as a dependent, within the meaning of Article 2(2), first subparagraph, of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations. In that regard, neither that provision nor any other provision of the Staff Regulations makes an official’s right to receive the dependent child allowance in respect of his spouse’s child totally conditional on that spouse not being an official or other member of staff of the European Union. Nor can such a condition be inferred from the general scheme of the provisions of the Staff Regulations.

(see paras 31-32, 40-41)

See:

11 July 2000, T‑134/99 Skrzypek v Commission, para. 69; 10 October 2006, T‑87/04 Arranz Benitez v Parliament, para. 42
JUDGMENT OF THE EUROPEAN UNION CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL

(Second Chamber)

29 April 2015

Viara Todorova Androva

v

Council of the European Union

‛Civil service — Promotion — 2011 promotion year — Non-inclusion in the list of officials eligible for promotion — Article 45 of the Staff Regulations — Two years’ seniority in the grade — Failure to take account of the period of work carried out as a member of the temporary staff — Difference in treatment due to the legal nature of the employment of the workers concerned — Directive 1999/70/EC — Framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP — Clause 4 — Reliance — Exclusion’

Application

:

under Article 270 TFEU, applicable to the EAEC Treaty pursuant to Article 106a thereof, in which Ms Todorova Androva essentially seeks, first, annulment of the decision of the Council of the European Union not to include her in the list of officials eligible for promotion in the 2011 promotion year, and, second, compensation for the material and non-material harm which she claims to have suffered as a result of the illegality of that decision.

Held

:

The action is dismissed. Ms Todorova Androva is to bear her own costs and is ordered to pay the costs incurred by the Council of the European Union. The European Commission and the European Court of Auditors are to bear their own costs.

Summary

Officials — Promotion — Minimum seniority required in the grade — Calculation — Taking account of periods of work carried out as a member of the temporary staff — Not included (Staff Regulations, Art. 45) Officials — Promotion — Minimum seniority required in the grade — Calculation — Exclusion of periods carried out as a member of the temporary staff — Infringement of Directive 1999/70 concerning the Framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP — None (Staff Regulations, Art. 45; Council Directive 1999/70, Annex, clause 4(1))
JUDGMENT OF THE EUROPEAN UNION CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL (Second Chamber)

11 April 2016

Thierry Rouffaud

v

European External Action Service (EEAS)

‛Civil service — Referral back to the Tribunal after setting aside — EEAS staff — Member of the contract staff — Member of the contract staff for auxiliary tasks — Reclassification of a ‘contract staff for auxiliary tasks’ contract as a ‘contract staff’ contract of indefinite duration — Refusal’

Application:

under Article 270 TFEU, applicable to the EAEC Treaty pursuant to Article 106a thereof, in which Mr Thierry Rouffaud sought, in particular, annulment of the decision of 6 August 2012 of the European External Action Service (EEAS) rejecting his application to have the period of service which he had completed as an member of the contract staff for auxiliary tasks recognised as a period of service completed as a member of the contract staff, and to have his successive fixed-term employment contracts reclassified as a contract of indefinite duration.

Held:

The action is dismissed. Each party is to bear its own costs incurred in Cases F‑59/13 and F‑59/13 RENV. The European External Action Service is to bear its own costs incurred in Case T‑457/14 P and is ordered to pay the costs incurred by Mr Thierry Rouffaud in Case T‑457/14 P.

Summary

Officials — Auxiliary staff — Reclassification of a ‘contract staff for auxiliary tasks’ contract as a ‘contract staff’ contract of indefinite duration — Not possible (Conditions of Employment of Other Servants, Arts 3a and 3b) Officials — Members of the contract staff — Recruitment — Assessment of duties which may fall within the various function groups — Discretion of the authority empowered to conclude contracts of employment (Conditions of Employment of Other Servants, Art. 80(2)) Officials — Auxiliary staff — Reclassification of a fixed-term ‘contract staff for auxiliary tasks’ contract as a ‘contract staff’ contract of indefinite duration — Conditions — Renewal — Definition (Conditions of Employment of Other Servants, Art. 3a)
70

Under Article 101 of the Rules of Procedure, without prejudice to the other provisions of Chapter 8 of Title 2 of those Rules, the unsuccessful party is to bear his own costs and to be ordered to pay the costs incurred by the other party if they have been applied for in the other party’s pleadings. Under Article 102(1) of the Rules of Procedure, the Tribunal may decide, if equity so requires, that an unsuccessful party is to bear his own costs, but is to pay only part of the costs incurred by the other party, or even that he is not to be ordered to pay any costs. Lastly, under Article 102(2) of the Rules of Procedure, a successful party may be ordered to bear his own costs and to pay some or all of the costs incurred by the other party if this appears justified by the conduct of that party, including before the proceedings were brought, especially if he has made the other party incur costs which are held to be unreasonable or vexatious.
Article 90(1) of the Staff Regulations provides that any person to whom the Staff Regulations apply may submit to the appointing authority a request that it take a decision relating to him and that, upon expiry of a period of four months from the date on which the request was made, the absence of a reply to the request is to be deemed to constitute an implied decision rejecting it. It follows from that provision that, as a rule, an implied decision refusing to grant an entitlement to an official can arise only if the official has first submitted a request to the administration for that entitlement to be granted to him.

The concept of a maintenance obligation agreed between former spouses by reason of their divorce is one of the financial consequences arising from the decree of divorce pronounced on the basis of the rules of the applicable civil law. Consequently, in order to determine whether the divorced spouse of an official or former official has grounds to claim entitlement on his/her own account, upon the death of his/her former spouse, to maintenance from that former spouse and fixed by agreement between them, reference must be made to the law governing the effects of their divorce. In that regard, where, in national law, the annulment by the appeal court of a decision at first instance terminating the payment of maintenance has the effect of eradicating that decision retroactively and, therefore, of retroactively reviving maintenance payments to the former spouse of a deceased official, that former spouse must necessarily be regarded as being entitled on his/her own account, from the time of that appeal judgment, to maintenance from that official.

The purpose of Article 27 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations is to enable the divorced spouse of an official or former official who was receiving maintenance from him/her at the time of the official’s death to continue to receive resources providing a livelihood after that death. There would be no justification for denying the divorced spouse of an official or former official the benefit of a survivor’s pension, and thus of a livelihood, solely on the ground, beyond his/her control, that the maintenance he/she was receiving under national law was terminated before the death of the official or former official and then revived retroactively after that death.

(see paras 58-61, 67)

Judgment in M v Court of Justice, T‑172/01, EU:T:2004:108, para. 72
Staff case summary



Staff case summary

Summary

Procedure – Interpretation of a judgment – Conditions for the admissibility of the application

(Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 129; Council Decision 2004/752, Art. 3(4))

For an application for interpretation of a judgment to be admissible, it must concern the operative part of the judgment in question and the essential grounds thereof, and seek to resolve an obscurity or ambiguity that may affect the meaning or scope of that judgment, in so far as that judgment was intended to resolve the particular case before the Court. Such an application is therefore inadmissible where it seeks to obtain from the Court in question an opinion on the application, implementation or consequences of its judgment or order.

(see para. 8)

See:

5/55 Assider v High Authority [1954-1956] ECR 135, 142; 70/63 A High Authority v Collotti and Court of Justice [1965] ECR 275, 280; 110/63 A Willame v Commission [1966] ECR 287, 290; 206/81 A Alvarez v Parliament [1983] ECR 2865, paras 8 to 11; 146/85 INT and 431/85 INT Maindiaux and Others v ESC and Others [1988] ECR 2003, paras 5 and 6

T-22/91 INT Raiola-Denti and Others v Council [1993] ECR II‑817, para. 6; T‑573/93 (129) Caballero Montoya v Commission [1997] ECR-SC I‑A‑271 and II‑761, para. 27
ORDER OF THE CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL (First Chamber)

26 September 2007

Case F-52/05

Q

v

Commission of the European Communities

(Civil service – Officials – Preliminary issues – Access to the file – Exception)

Application: brought under Articles 236 EC and 152 EA, in which Q seeks, first, essentially, annulment of the implied decisions of the Commission rejecting her requests for assistance under Article 24 of the Staff Regulations, and for provisional measures in connection with the harassment she has allegedly suffered, together with annulment of her career development report for 2003, and, secondly, payment of damages. The Commission subsequently seeks the deletion of sentences appearing in some of the evidence set out in records of hearings included in the annexes to the administrative inquiry file.

Held: The Commission’s request is rejected. Costs are reserved.

Summary

Procedure – Measures for the organisation of the procedure – Administrative inquiry file transmitted by an institution to the Community judicature – Right of access – Request by the institution to delete sentences in some of the evidence in the file – Rejected
Staff case summary



Staff case summary

Summary

1. Procedure – Admissibility of pleadings – Assessment at the time when the pleading is submitted

(Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 114)

2. Officials – Actions – Action disregarding the content of an amicable settlement which had previously led to a case being withdrawn – No legal interest in bringing proceedings

1. Just as the admissibility of an action must be judged by reference to the situation prevailing when the application was lodged, the admissibility of other pleadings, such as a plea of inadmissibility, must be judged at the time when they are submitted. Such an interpretation ensures respect for the principles of legal certainty and the protection of legitimate expectations.

(see para. 27)

See:

50/84 Bensider and Others v Commission [1984] ECR 3991, para. 8

T-236/00 R II Stauner and Others v Parliament and Commission [2001] ECR II‑2943, para. 49; T-219/01 Commerzbank v Commission [2003] ECR II‑2843, para. 61

2. Where, in a dispute before the Tribunal, an applicant proposes an amicable settlement to a defendant institution, the institution accepts part of that proposal and, on the basis of that partial acceptance, the applicant successfully requests that the Tribunal remove the case from the register, the official concerned must be regarded as having accepted the agreement finally proposed by the institution and therefore has no interest in disputing the content of that agreement on the pretext that it does not correspond to his initial proposal.

Where an institution has met all of the commitments arising from an agreement reached in a dispute between itself and an applicant, that applicant has no interest in complaining that the institution did not comply with the terms of that agreement.

(see paras 44-52)
Staff case summary



Staff case summary

Summary

Officials – Actions – Amicable settlement of the dispute before the Civil Service Tribunal – Removal from the register

(Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Arts. 87(5), second subpara., and 98, first para; Council Decision 2004/752, Art. 3(4))
ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE FIRST CHAMBER OF THE CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL

19 July 2007

Case F-98/06

Risto Lohiniva

v

Commission of the European Communities

(Amicable settlement on the initiative of the Tribunal – Removal from the register)

Application: brought under Articles 236 EC and 152 EA, in which Mr Lohiniva seeks annulment of the decision of the Commission appointing authority of 30 May 2006 rejecting his complaint against the Commission’s decision refusing to recognise his right, from the time of his reassignment to Brussels following a period of service in Finland, to continue to transfer 35% of his net monthly salary to that country, in accordance with Article 17 of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations.

Held: Case F‑98/06 Lohiniva v Commission is removed from the register of the Tribunal. The Commission is to pay the applicant the sum of EUR 5 000 in final settlement of the case, including his costs. The Commission is to bear its own costs.

Summary

Officials – Actions – Amicable settlement of the dispute before the Civil Service Tribunal – Removal from the register

(Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Arts. 87(5), second subpara., and 98, first para; Council Decision 2004/752, Art. 3(4))