ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
An institution’s decision rejecting a claim for compensation forms an integral part of the preliminary administrative procedure which precedes an action to establish liability before the Civil Service Tribunal and, consequently, claims for annulment of such a decision cannot be assessed in isolation from the claims relating to compensation. The measure setting out the position adopted by an institution’s administration during the pre-litigation stage only has the effect of allowing the party who has suffered damage to apply to the Civil Service Tribunal for compensation.

In an action for compensation brought by an official, the Courts of the European Union may not take account, when giving judgment, of a document drawn up ex parte, such as an expert’s report commissioned by the applicant and drawn up solely at his request.

The duty to have regard to the interests of officials and the principle of sound administration imply in particular that when the competent authority takes a decision concerning the situation of an official or other staff member, even in the exercise of a broad discretion, it should take into consideration all the factors which may affect its decision, and that when doing so, it must take into account not only the interests of the service but also those of the official or staff member concerned.

However, the taking into account of the personal interests of the official or staff member should not go so far as to require the administration to disregard its own internal rules.

Consequently, given that the entitlement to furniture is provided for in Article 5 of Annex X to the Staff Regulations, when the institution provides an official posted to a third country with accommodation, and not in Article 23 of that annex, when the official is authorised to rent accommodation, the administration does not infringe its duty to have regard to the interests of staff or the principle of sound administration when it refuses to allow him to use, in the accommodation which he is authorised to rent, furniture purchased, as part of the entitlement to furniture, for accommodation provided for officials.

(see paras 97, 110-112)

order in Verheyden v Commission, F‑54/10, EU:F:2011:8, paras 36 and 37 and the case-law cited therein
51

As regards the references to Article 4 of the ILO Convention, to Article 24(a) of the European Social Charter and to Article 30 of the Charter, it must be observed that, in its judgment in ETF v Schuerings, T‑107/11 P, EU:T:2013:624, the General Court of the European Union held: ‘100 Article 30 of the [C]harter … does not lay down any specific obligations. It cannot be inferred from it that, in a case such as the present, the [agency] necessarily has a prior obligation to examine the possibility of redeploying the member of staff such as that identified by the Tribunal …. Nor does that provision preclude, having regard to all the facts of the case, the termination decision from being regarded as justified. In this connection, the special operational constraints of agencies, the existence of measures to support the member of staff whose employment is at risk of termination or consideration of the possibility of his transfer to another agency or institution may, in particular, be regarded as relevant circumstances. 101 As regards, for the sake of completeness also, the legal instruments in the field of employment law relied on by [the applicant], it must be noted that Article 4 of the [ILO] Convention states that [“t]he employment of a worker shall not be terminated unless there is a valid reason for such termination connected with the capacity or conduct of the worker or based on the operational requirements of the undertaking, establishment or service[”], and that Article 24(a) of the European Social Charter ... guarantees [“]the right of all workers not to have their employment terminated without valid reasons for such termination connected with their capacity or conduct or based on the operational requirements of the undertaking, establishment or service[”]. Without it being necessary to rule on the issue of whether those legal instruments apply to the employment relationship, governed by the CEOS, between a member of the temporary staff and a European Union agency, it must be held that it cannot be inferred either from the wording of the abovementioned texts that there is an obligation such as that imposed on an entity faced with the transfer of one of its activities to another entity ....’
Under the general implementing provisions referred to in Article 9(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations, as adopted by the European Economic and Social Committee (EESC), in order to calculate the length of employment of an official seeking early retirement without a reduction in his pension rights, the EESC is permitted to take into account all the professional experience of the applicants, acquired both within and outside the EU institutions. First, the ratio legis of Article 9(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations is to facilitate personnel management in the EU institutions through the granting of early retirement without reduction of pension rights. That provision is not therefore designed to favour officials or other servants who at the end of their professional career have a greater number of years’ service within the EU institutions in comparison with those who have fewer years’ service in the EU institutions because more of their career has been spent outside those institutions.

Secondly, according to Article 9(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations, the facility of early retirement without any reduction of pension rights must be granted only in the interests of the service. It is also clear from that provision that the legislature intended to grant the appointing authority of each of the EU institutions discretion as to the criteria to be used to select the officials and other servants to whom the facility of early retirement without reduction in pension rights should be granted, on condition that those criteria are objective and laid down in advance. The abovementioned provision does not therefore require all the EU institutions to adopt common criteria for deciding between applicants. Consequently, since Article 9(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations does not require the institutions to consider length of service within the EU institutions as an objective criterion for deciding between applicants for early retirement without reduction of pension rights, without nevertheless prohibiting them from doing so, it cannot be ruled out that an institution may choose to exercise its discretion by including in its general implementing provisions giving effect to Article 9(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations, among other criteria, the criterion of length of service within the European Union.

(see paras 54-57, 60)

See:

Judgment of 12 September 2006 in De Soeten v Council, F‑86/05, EU:F:2006:87, para. 48
JUDGMENT OF THE EUROPEAN UNION CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL

(Third Chamber)

19 July 2016

Thomas Earlie

v

European Parliament

‛Civil service — Official — Former official — Sums deducted from retirement pension — Maintenance payable to the ex-wife of the former official — Attachment order adopted by a national court — Attachment order discharged — New order requiring the former official to instruct the Parliament to pay the maintenance to his ex-wife — Instructions to that effect by the former official — Subsequent instructions from the former official to cease the payments to his ex-wife — Parliament’s refusal to execute the instructions — Family law — Exclusive jurisdiction of the national court — Duty of sincere cooperation’

Application:

under Article 270 TFEU, applicable to the EAEC Treaty pursuant to Article 106a thereof, by which Mr Thomas Earlie seeks annulment of the decision of the European Parliament of 6 December 2013 modifying his pension rights, together with compensation in respect of the various types of harm which he claims to have suffered.

Held:

The action is dismissed. Mr Thomas Earlie shall bear his own costs and is ordered to pay the costs incurred by the European Parliament. Ms Mary Earlie Gibbons shall bear her own costs.

Summary

Privileges and immunities of the European Union — Officials and other servants of the European Union — Subject to national law as regards legal relationships connected with their private lives — Execution of a decision of a national court in divorce proceedings concerning a former official — Obligations of the institution concerned

(Staff Regulations, Art. 23, para. 1)

The obligation on a former official to pay maintenance to his ex-wife, as set out in a decision of a national court, falls within the scope of a private legal relationship between that official and another individual, his ex-wife. With regard to that kind of relationship, in particular so far as concerns the observance of his personal legal obligations, in accordance with the first paragraph of Article 23 of the Staff Regulations, the former official is fully subject to the applicable national law, like any other individual.

Against that background, any institution is required, by virtue of its duty of sincere cooperation with the national courts, to respond to requests to execute an order adopted by the national court, such as an order setting out an obligation for a former official to pay maintenance to his ex-wife. This duty of sincere cooperation also implies that, even if it is not the direct addressee of such a court ruling, an institution, as the employer of the official owing the maintenance allowance, must comply with the terms of that ruling by refusing to grant a request from the debtor official which clearly runs counter to the obligations directly imposed on that official by the court ruling at issue where that ruling, in accordance with its terms, has been communicated to the institution concerned by the debtor official.

(see paras 38, 41)

See:

Judgment of 17 May 2006 in Kallianos v Commission, T‑93/04, EU:T:2006:130, paras 48 and 49 and the case-law cited
JUDGMENT OF THE EUROPEAN UNION CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL

(Third Chamber)

2 March 2016

José Luis Ruiz Molina

v

Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

‛Civil service — Temporary staff — OHIM staff — Fixed-term contract with a termination clause — Clause terminating the contract in the event that the member of staff is not included on a reserve list of a competition — Termination of the contract pursuant to the termination clause — Date on which the termination clause takes effect — Open Competitions OHIM/AD/01/13 and OHIM/AST/02/13’

Application:

under Article 270 TFEU, in which Mr Ruiz Molina essentially seeks annulment of the decision of 4 June 2014 by which the President of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) terminated his contract as a member of the temporary staff at the end of a six-month notice period.

Held:

The action is dismissed. Mr Ruiz Molina is to bear his own costs and is ordered to pay half of the costs incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs). The Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) is to bear half of its own costs.

Summary

Actions brought by officials — Act adversely affecting an official — Definition — Clause in the contract of a member of the temporary staff making the continuation of the employment relationship conditional on the staff member’s inclusion on the reserve list of an open competition — Included (Staff Regulations, Art. 90(2)) Officials — Protection of health and safety — Framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP — Directive 1999/70 — Obligation for the Member States to introduce measures to prevent the misuse of successive fixed-term employment contracts — Termination of a fixed-term contract — No infringement (Council Directive 1999/70, Annex, Clauses 1(b) and 5(1)(a)) EU law — Principles — Equal treatment — Limits — Difference in treatment where favourable treatment is unlawfully granted to another person — No infringement
Under the duty to provide assistance imposed upon it by Article 24 of the Staff Regulations, the administration, when faced with an incident which is incompatible with the good order and tranquillity of the service, must intervene with all the necessary vigour and respond with the rapidity and solicitude required by the circumstances of the case with a view to establishing the facts and taking the appropriate action in full knowledge of the facts. To that end, it is sufficient that an official who is seeking the protection of his institution provide at least some evidence of the reality of attacks of which he claims to have been the victim. When such evidence is provided, the institution concerned is under an obligation to take the necessary measures, in particular to undertake an administrative inquiry, with the cooperation of the complainant, to determine the facts which gave rise to the complaint.

Where a member of staff makes a request for assistance, he must provide at least some evidence of the reality of the attacks of which he claims to have been the victim, it being understood that, since the administration is required to examine the material which is provided to it in that request in order to decide what measures are necessary, the request for assistance must be as precise and complete as possible. Furthermore, upon a request for assistance being made, an obligation arises on the part of the institution concerned to adopt the appropriate measures, in particular by considering whether it is appropriate to open an administrative inquiry, with the cooperation of the complainant.

(see paras 41, 48)

Judgments of 16 May 2012 in AF v Commission, F‑61/10, EU:F:2012:65, paragraph 71, and 11 July 2013 in Tzirani v Commission, F‑46/11, EU:F:2013:115, paragraph 108 and the case-law cited therein
Staff case summary



Staff case summary

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. Procedure – Objection of lis pendens

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. 40)

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. An action which is between the same parties, has the same purpose and is brought on the basis of the same submissions as an action brought previously must be dismissed as inadmissible.

(see para. 47)

See:

172/83 and 226/83 Hoogovens Groep v Commission [1985] ECR 2831, para. 9; 358/85 and 51/86 France v Parliament [1988] ECR 4821, para. 12

Judgment of 14 June 2007 in T-68/07 Landtag Schleswig-Holstein v Commission , not published in the ECR, para. 16
Staff case summary



Staff case summary

Summary

Officials – Actions – Prior administrative complaint – Formal conditions

(Staff Regulations, Art. 90(2))

Since an administrative complaint lodged by an official does not need to take any particular form, a document sent electronically which clearly and precisely manifests its author’s intention to challenge a decision taken concerning him constitutes a complaint within the meaning of Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations.

A complaint is deemed to be lodged when it reaches the institution to which it is addressed. That is not the case with a complaint sent to an incorrect electronic address, even if it is likely to reach the institution’s general server, without the sender receiving an error message.

An official exercising due care who chooses to submit his complaint electronically must make sure that the addressee’s address is correct and that the document has been safely received, for instance by telephoning the addressee or requesting a document proving receipt of the email. That basic precaution is all the more necessary since the communication techniques currently used within the institutions cannot definitely guarantee, particularly where the terms preceding the ‘@’ sign are incorrect or inaccurate, that the document in question will be automatically redistributed to the addressee or, at the very least, that an error message in the form of an autoreply will be sent to the sender.

(see paras 26-30, 32)

See:

167/86 Rousseau v Court of Auditors [1988] ECR 2705, para. 8; 23/87 and 24/87 Aldinger and Virgili v Parliament [1988] ECR 4395, para. 13

T-54/90 Lacroix v Commission [1991] ECR II‑749, paras 28 and 29; T-354/03 Reggimenti v Parliament [2005] ECR-SC I‑A‑33 and II‑147, para. 43

F-3/05 Schmit v Commission [2006] ECR-SC I-A-1-9 and II-A-1-33, para. 28
ORDER OF THE CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL (Second Chamber)

17 July 2007

Case F-141/06

Marc Hartwig

v

European Parliament and Commission of the European Communities

(Civil service – Officials – Preliminary issues – Objection of inadmissibility)

Application: brought under Articles 236 EC and 152 EA, in which Mr Hartwig seeks annulment of Parliament’s decision of 27 March 2006 and the Commission’s decision of 12 April 2006 in so far as they classify him in grade B*3.

Held: The action is dismissed as inadmissible in so far as it concerns Parliament. Parliament is to bear its own costs. The applicant and the Commission are to bear their own costs relating to the proceedings on the plea of inadmissibility. The remainder of the costs are reserved.

Summary

Officials – Actions – Prior administrative complaint – Formal conditions

(Staff Regulations, Art. 90(2))

Since an administrative complaint lodged by an official does not need to take any particular form, a document sent electronically which clearly and precisely manifests its author’s intention to challenge a decision taken concerning him constitutes a complaint within the meaning of Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations.

A complaint is deemed to be lodged when it reaches the institution to which it is addressed. That is not the case with a complaint sent to an incorrect electronic address, even if it is likely to reach the institution’s general server, without the sender receiving an error message.

An official exercising due care who chooses to submit his complaint electronically must make sure that the addressee’s address is correct and that the document has been safely received, for instance by telephoning the addressee or requesting a document proving receipt of the email. That basic precaution is all the more necessary since the communication techniques currently used within the institutions cannot definitely guarantee, particularly where the terms preceding the ‘@’ sign are incorrect or inaccurate, that the document in question will be automatically redistributed to the addressee or, at the very least, that an error message in the form of an autoreply will be sent to the sender.

(see paras 26-30, 32)

See:

167/86 Rousseau v Court of Auditors [1988] ECR 2705, para. 8; 23/87 and 24/87 Aldinger and Virgili v Parliament [1988] ECR 4395, para. 13

T-54/90 Lacroix v Commission [1991] ECR II‑749, paras 28 and 29; T-354/03 Reggimenti v Parliament [2005] ECR-SC I‑A‑33 and II‑147, para. 43

F-3/05 Schmit v Commission [2006] ECR-SC I-A-1-9 and II-A-1-33, para. 28
ORDER OF THE CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL (First Chamber)

14 December 2007

Case F-82/06

Tineke Duyster

v

Commission of the European Communities

(Civil service – Officials – Parental leave – Date when parental leave begins – Lis pendens – Manifest inadmissibility)

Application: brought under Articles 236 EC and 152 EA, in which Mrs Duyster seeks annulment of the Commission’s decision of 11 May 2006 rejecting her complaint against the Commission’s decision of 17 November 2005 fixing the date for the start of her parental leave on 8 November 2004. Moreover, the applicant once again puts forward the same heads of claim as in Case F‑18/06 Duyster v Commission, namely, first, annulment of the Commission’s decision of 17 November 2005 fixing the date for the start of her parental leave on 8 November 2004, and second, payment of damages in compensation for the material and non-material damage caused by that decision.

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

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. Procedure – Objection of lis pendens

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. 40)

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. An action which is between the same parties, has the same purpose and is brought on the basis of the same submissions as an action brought previously must be dismissed as inadmissible.

(see para. 47)

See:

172/83 and 226/83 Hoogovens Groep v Commission [1985] ECR 2831, para. 9; 358/85 and 51/86 France v Parliament [1988] ECR 4821, para. 12

Judgment of 14 June 2007 in T-68/07 Landtag Schleswig-Holstein v Commission, not published in the ECR, para. 16
ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL

10 September 2007

Case F-83/07 R

Brigitte Zangerl-Posselt

v

Commission of the European Communities

(Civil service – Procedure for interim relief – Competitions – Non‑admission to the tests – Application for interim measures – Urgency – None)

Application: brought under Articles 242 EC, 243 EC, 157 EA and 158 EA, in which Mrs Zangerl-Posselt, who applied to take part in open competition EPSO/AST/27/06, organised by the European Communities Personnel Selection Office for the constitution of a reserve of German language assistants, asks the Tribunal to order the Commission to allow her to take part in the competition tests on a provisional basis.

Held: The application for interim relief is dismissed. Costs are reserved.

Summary

1. Application for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Measures not prejudging the decision on the substance of the case – Application for provisional admission to the tests in a competition – Requirement not met

(Arts 242 EC and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2))

2. Application for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Conditions for granting – Urgency – Serious and irreparable damage – Refusal to admit to a competition – None

(Art. 242 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2))