JUDGMENT OF THE GENERAL COURT (Appeal Chamber)

16 December 2010

Case T-364/09 P

Giorgio Lebedef

v

European Commission

(Appeal — Civil service — Officials — Annual leave — Half-time secondment for union representation — Unauthorised absence — Deduction of days from annual leave entitlement — Article 60 of the Staff Regulations)

Appeal: brought against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (First Chamber) of 7 July 2009 in Case F-39/08 Lebedef v Commission [2009] ECR-SC I-A-1-241 and II-A-1-1305, with the request that the judgment be set aside.

Held: The appeal is dismissed. Mr Giorgio Lebedef is to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission in these proceedings.

Summary

1. Officials — Representation — Protection of staff representatives — Scope

(Staff Regulations, Annex II, Art. 1, sixth para.)

2. Appeals — Pleas in law — Plea against a ground of the judgment not necessary to support the operative part — Invalid plea in law

(Art. 257 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Annex I, Art. 9)

3. Appeals — Pleas in law — Error of law relied on not identified — Inadmissibility

(Art. 257 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Annex I, Art. 11; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 138(1), first subpara., under (c))

4. Appeals — Pleas in law — Inadequate statement of reasons — Recourse by the Civil Service Tribunal to an implied statement of reasons — Lawfulness — Conditions

(Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 36 and Annex I, Art. 7(1))

1. The second sentence of the sixth paragraph of Article 1 of Annex II to the Staff Regulations is intended to safeguard the rights of members of the Staff Committee and officials appointed by the Committee to organs set up under the Staff Regulations or by the institution, by protecting them from any harm they might suffer because of their activities as staff representatives under the Staff Regulations. Furthermore, the first sentence of that provision is designed to facilitate the participation of officials in staff representation, by enabling them, in particular, to carry out those duties within the working time prescribed for their normal service in their institution, and not in addition to it.

However, first of all, that provision has neither the purpose nor the effect of exempting officials carrying out such staff representation activities, and who are not seconded for that purpose, from their other obligations under the Staff Regulations, and in particular those laid down in the first paragraph of Article 60, which requires officials to be available to their institution at all times. Secondly, regarding representation duties under the Staff Regulations as ‘part of their normal service’ in their institution certainly does not mean that officials carrying out those duties are therefore present in the department to which they are assigned, or that they are not to be regarded as absent from that department. Such an interpretation cannot be inferred from either the wording or the purpose of the sixth paragraph of Article 1 of Annex II to the Staff Regulations.

(see paras 23-24)

See: T-110/99 and T-160/99 F v Parliament [2000] ECR-SC I-A-291 and II-1333, para. 64

2. In appeal proceedings a plea in law directed against grounds of a judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal which are not necessary to support the decision under appeal is invalid and must be dismissed.

(see para. 31)

See: judgment of 19 January 2010 in T-355/08 P De Fays v Commission, para. 56 and the case-law cited therein

3. It follows from Article 11 of Annex I to the Statute of the Court of Justice and Article 138(1)(c) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court that an appeal must indicate precisely the contested elements of the judgment which the appellant seeks to have set aside, and also the legal arguments specifically advanced in support of the appeal. That requirement is not satisfied by an appeal which does not include any argument specifically identifying the error of law allegedly vitiating the judgment or order in question.

Moreover, statements which are too general and imprecise to be legally assessed must be regarded as manifestly inadmissible.

(see para. 32)

See: order of 10 February 2009 in C-290/08 P Correia de Matos v Commission, not published in the ECR, para. 18 and the case-law cited therein; order of 6 May 2010 in T-100/08 P Kerelov v Commission, para. 39 and the case-law cited therein

4. The obligation to state the reasons on which judgments are based follows from Article 36 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, which applies to the Civil Service Tribunal pursuant to Article 7(1) of Annex I to that Statute. Judgments of the Civil Service Tribunal must contain an adequate statement of reasons to enable the General Court to exercise its power of review. However, that requirement cannot be interpreted as meaning that the Civil Service Tribunal is obliged to respond in detail to every single argument advanced by the applicant, particularly if the argument was not sufficiently clear and precise and was not adequately supported by evidence. The reasoning may be implicit on condition that it enables the party concerned to know why the court of first instance has not upheld its arguments and provides the appeal court with sufficient material for it to exercise its power of review.

(see paras 71-73)

See: judgment of 2 March 2010 in T-248/08 P Doktor v Council, para. 64 and the case-law cited therein; judgment of 1 September 2010 in T-91/09 P Skareby v Commission, para. 36 and the case-law cited therein