ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
The application of new general implementing provisions for Articles 11 and 12 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations concerning the transfer to the EU pension scheme of pension rights acquired under another pension scheme, applied for before those provisions were adopted but effected after their entry into force, is not contrary to Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations.

In that regard, according to a generally accepted principle and save as otherwise provided, a new rule applies immediately to situations yet to arise and to the future effects of situations which arose, but were not fully constituted, under the old rule. That is so except for situations originating and becoming definitive under the previous legislation, which create acquired rights. A right is considered to be acquired when the event giving rise to it occurred before the legislative amendment. However, that is not the case when the event creating the right did not take place under the legislation that has been amended.

First of all, Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations does not preclude the immediate application of the new general implementing provisions.

Secondly, neither the communication, to an official or other staff member who has submitted an application for a transfer to the EU pension scheme of pension rights acquired under another pension scheme, of a proposal concerning the additional pensionable years to be credited, let alone the mere submission of such an application, alters the legal position of that person or produces binding legal effects. Consequently, the official or other staff member did not have acquired rights capable of being infringed by the application of the new provisions.

Furthermore, the right of an official or other staff member to have additional pensionable years credited is not fully constituted until the capital representing his rights acquired under another scheme has been transferred to the EU pension scheme.

In addition, individuals may not rely on the principle of protection of legitimate expectations to challenge the application of a new regulatory provision, particularly in an area where the legislature has a broad discretion.

(see paras 24-27, 29, 36)

See:

Judgment of 13 October 2015, Commission v Verile and Gjergji, T‑104/14 P, EU:T:2015:776, paras 151 to 154 and 170 and the case-law cited therein
ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE FIRST CHAMBER OF THE EUROPEAN UNION CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL

14 July 2014

Case F‑3/14

DJ

v

European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA)

(Amicable settlement of the dispute — Article 69(1) of the Rules of Procedure — Amicable settlement requested by the parties — Agreement between the parties — Removal from the register)

Application: under Article 270 TFEU, in which DJ seeks, inter alia, annulment of the decision of 12 March 2013 by which the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) extended his contract for only one year.

Held: Case F‑3/14 is removed from the register of the Tribunal as a result of the agreement concluded between DJ and the European Aviation Safety Agency. DJ and the European Aviation Safety Agency are to bear the costs in accordance with their agreement.

Summary

Actions brought by officials — Amicable settlement of the dispute before the Civil Service Tribunal — Removal from the register

(Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal, Art. 69(1))

(see paras 2, 4)
ORDER OF THE EUROPEAN UNION CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL

(Single Judge)

27 October 2015

Marianella Ameryckx

v

European Commission

‛Civil service — Member of the contract staff — Function group — Grading — Objection of inadmissibility — Concept of an act having an adverse effect — Confirmatory decision — New and material fact — Manifest inadmissibility’

Application:

under Article 270 TFEU, applicable to the EAEC Treaty pursuant to Article 106a thereof, by which Ms Ameryckx seeks, first, annulment of the decision of the European Commission of 17 September 2014 refusing to ‘reconstruct’ her career as a member of the contract staff by reclassifying her in a higher function group and, secondly, compensation for the material and non-material damage she claims to have suffered.

Held:

The action is dismissed. Ms Ameryckx is to bear her own costs and is ordered to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.

Summary

Actions brought by officials — Action alleging that the failure to adopt a decision reclassifying a member of the contract staff was unlawful — Objection by the defendant institution that the action is inadmissible on the basis that the person concerned has not been successful in a selection test — Lack of any requirement for that person to be successful given that the institution had not been practically able to hold that test — Rejection (Staff Regulations, Art. 90) Actions brought by officials — Act having an adverse effect — Meaning — Memo from the ‘Office for the Administration and Payment of Individual Entitlements’ inviting the administration to reclassify members of the contract staff in a different function group — Not included (Staff Regulations, Arts 90(2) and 91(1)) Actions brought by officials — Time-limits — Point from which time starts to run — Notification — Meaning — Decision brought to the attention of staff by means of publication on the institution’s intranet site — Included (Staff Regulations, Arts 90(2) and 110(4)) Actions brought by officials — Prior administrative complaint — Time-limits — Claim barred by lapse of time — Reopening — Condition — New and material fact — Meaning — Discovery of a memo from the administration not constituting an act having an adverse effect — Not included (Staff Regulations, Art. 90)
24

As regards the applicant’s argument referring to the judgment of 12 December 2013 in CH v Parliament (F‑129/12, EU:F:2013:203), the Parliament maintains that, in that case, the two decisions were sent the same day and were drafted differently from the decisions of 11 November 2013 and 5 December 2013. That case thus cannot be relied upon in any way to support the applicant’s argument that the letter of 11 November 2013 is not the decision terminating her contract. The Parliament explains that its practice is always to send an initial decision terminating the contract of the APA at the end of the applicable period of notice, which starts to run the day after that decision is received, and a second decision which merely confirms the dismissal decision and informs the APA of the precise date on which his contract is to end. That second decision does not contain any new information in relation to the initial decision, so far as the dismissal is concerned, and is not preceded by a re-examination of the situation of the addressee of the earlier act.
ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE THIRD CHAMBER

OF THE EUROPEAN UNION CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL

7 September 2015

Luc Verhelst

v

European Medicines Agency (EMA)

‛Amicable settlement of the proceedings — Article 91(2) of the Rules of Procedure — Removal from the register’

Application:

under Article 270 TFEU, applicable to the EAEC Treaty pursuant to Article 106a thereof, by which Mr Verhelst sought annulment of the decision of 31 March 2014 by which the European Medicines Agency (EMA) placed him on ‘non-active status’ as from that date, together with an order requiring EMA to pay compensation for the damage sustained.

Held:

Case F‑9/15, Verhelst v EMA is removed from the register of the Civil Service Tribunal following the agreement reached between Mr Verhelst and the European Medicines Agency. The parties are to bear their own costs.

Summary

Actions brought by officials — Amicable settlement of proceedings before the Civil Service Tribunal — Removal from the register

(Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal, Art. 91(2))

(see para. 7)
ORDER OF THE EUROPEAN UNION CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL

(Single Judge)

12 May 2016

FR

v

European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA)

‛Amicable settlement of the dispute — Article 91(1) of the Rules of Procedure — Agreement between the parties on the initiative of the Tribunal — Removal from the register’

Application:

under Article 270 TFEU, applicable to the EAEC Treaty pursuant to Article 106a thereof, in which FR seeks, essentially, annulment of the decision of 13 June 2014 by which the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) dismissed him at the end of the extension of his probationary period as a member of the temporary staff, and compensation in respect of the material and non-material harm allegedly suffered.

Held:

Case F‑51/15 is removed from the Register of the Tribunal as a result of the agreement concluded between FR and the European Aviation Safety Agency. FR and the European Aviation Safety Agency are to bear the costs in accordance with the terms of their agreement.

Summary

Actions brought by officials — Amicable settlement of the dispute before the Civil Service Tribunal — Removal from the register

(Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal, Art. 91(1))

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

27 January 2016

Jérôme Glantenay and Others

v

European Commission

‛Amicable settlement of the proceedings — Article 91(1) of the Rules of Procedure — Agreement between the parties on the initiative of the Tribunal — Removal from the register’

Application:

under Article 270 TFEU, applicable to the EAEC Treaty pursuant to Article 106a thereof, in which Mr Glantenay and eight other applicants whose names appear in the annex brought the present action seeking, first, annulment of the decisions of the selection board for competition EPSO/AD/204/10, addressed to each of the applicants, not to admit them to the assessment stage of competition EPSO/AD/204/10, at the EPSO assessment centre, after the reopening of that competition. Secondly, the applicants seek compensation for the material and non-material damage they allegedly suffered.

Held:

Case F‑85/15, Glantenay and Others v Commission, is removed from the register of the Tribunal as a result of the agreement reached between Mr Glantenay and the eight other applicants whose names appear in the annex and the European Commission. The parties are to bear the costs as agreed between them.

Summary

Actions brought by officials — Amicable settlement of the dispute before the Civil Service Tribunal — Removal from the register

(Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal, Art. 91)

(see para. 5)
ORDER OF THE EUROPEAN UNION CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL

(First Chamber)

18 July 2016

Daniele Possanzini

v

European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of the Member States of the European Union (Frontex)

‛Civil service — Frontex staff — Temporary staff — Non-renewal of contract based on the applicant’s 2009 appraisal report — Proof of notification of the report — None — Annulment by the Tribunal — Compliance with the judgment — Notification of the appraisal report — Delay in the production and communication of the report’

Application:

under Article 270 TFEU, applicable to the EAEC Treaty pursuant to Article 106a thereof, by which Mr Daniele Possanzini seeks annulment of his 2009 appraisal report, drawn up by the European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of the Member States of the European Union (Frontex) and notified to him on 12 July 2014 in compliance with the Tribunal’s judgment of 30 September 2013 in Possanzini v Frontex (F‑124/11, EU:F:2013:137), in so far as it amends his initial appraisal report, together with an award of damages in the sum of EUR 4000 in respect of the non-material damage allegedly suffered by reason of the late production and communication of that report.

Held:

The action is dismissed as being manifestly unfounded. Mr Daniele Possanzini shall bear his own costs and is ordered to pay the costs incurred by the European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of the Member States of the European Union.

Summary

Actions brought by officials — Plea based on a procedural irregularity — Plea inoperative in the absence of any effect on the content of the decision

A procedural irregularity cannot lead to the annulment of the contested decision unless it is shown that it could have had an influence on the content of the decision.

(see para. 56)

See:

Judgment of 30 January 2013 in Wahlström v Frontex, F‑87/11, EU:F:2013:10, para. 58
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 22/55

Action brought on 28 September 2007 — Bernard v Europol

(Case F-99/07)

(2008/C 22/107)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Applicant: Marjorie Bernard (Woerden, Netherlands) (represented by: P. de Casparis, lawyer)

Defendant: European Police Office (Europol)

Form of order sought

— Annul the decision of 26 June 2007, notified on 28 June 2007, concerning the complaint, and the assessments of 5 February 2007 and 25 July 2007;

— Order Europol: — to grant the applicant an increase in monthly salary with effect from 1 September 2006, together with interest; — to pay damages in the amount of EUR 7 500 net;

— Order Europol to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The present proceedings relate to the assessment of the applicant's work during the period from 1 September 2005 to 31 August 2006. The applicant's work was assessed as a ‘2’, which corresponds to the criterion ‘does not entirely meet the standard required’.

The applicant made a complaint concerning the assessment and the lack of any decision regarding the award of an increase in monthly salary and, in that context, she relied on the assessment guidelines in force in Europol. The applicant submits that the assessment is manifestly incorrect.

The applicant submits in particular that her complaints were declared unfounded by a decision of 26 June 2007 and alleges breach of the principle of the duty to state reasons since no reasons were stated for that decision. Nevertheless, the Director of Europol points out that the assessment was withdrawn and that a fresh assessment was to be made. That assessment took place on 25 July 2007.

The present action therefore relates to the decision made on the complaint and the assessment of 25 July 2007.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 92/49

Action brought on 21 December 2007 — Yannoussis v Commission

(Case F-143/07)

(2008/C 92/101)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Georgios Yannoussis (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: A. Pappas, lawyer)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Re:

Annulment of the decision of the appointing authority of 21 December 2006 rejecting the applicant's candidature for the vacant position of Head of the Representation of the Commission in Greece.

Form of order sought

— Annul the decision of the appointing authority of 21 December 2006;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 79/38

Action brought on 27 December 2007 — Bosman v Council

(Case F-145/07)

(2008/C 79/74)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Pierre Bosman (Dendermondsesteenweg, Belgium) (represented by: T. Bontinck and P.S. Gennari Curlo, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

The subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the individual decision of 28 February 2007 refusing the household allowance for the purposes of calculating retirement pension rights.

Form of order sought

— Annul the statement of 27 February 2007 determining retirement pension rights;

— order the defendant to pay the household allowance applied for as from 1 March 2007;
—

Annul the decision of 11 April 2007 in so far as it awards the applicant a single additional priority point in the 2003 Promotion procedure, making a total of 2 priority points and a grand total of 21 points, and order that the defendant pay compensation;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 92/51

Action brought on 18 February 2008 — Ritto v Commission

(Case F-18/08)

(2008/C 92/106)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Luis Ritto (Rome, Italy) (represented by: J. Deliens and C. Bernard-Glanz, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

The subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the appointing authority's decision of 14 May 2007 cancelling the applicant's household allowance as from 1 September 2001 and claiming recovery of the sums overpaid since that date, and annulment of all the decisions stemming from it.

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

— annul the appointing authority's decision of 14 May 2007 and all decisions stemming from it;

— annul as far as necessary the appointing authority's decision rejecting the applicant's complaint;
—

Order the European Parliament to pay to the applicant the expatriation allowance corresponding to a monthly sum of 16 % of the total amount of basic salary plus household allowance and dependent child allowance paid to the applicant per month since April 2007 and for all the months following until payment in full;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 142/40

Action brought on 21 March 2008 — Schell v Commission

(Case F-36/08)

(2008/C 142/75)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Arno Schell (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: F. Frabetti, lawyer)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the applicant's career development report for the period from 1 January 2006 to 31 December 2006 and annulment of his 2007 promotion report.

Form of order sought

— Annul the applicant's career development report for the period from 1 January 2006 to 31 December 2006 and annul his 2007 promotion report;
—

annul the Commission decision of 7 September 2007 fixing the conditions of employment of the applicant as a member of the contract staff for auxiliary tasks in so far as they provide for the application of the proviso laid down in Article 100 of the CEOS;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 183/33

Action brought on 16 April 2008 — Spee v Europol

(Case F-43/08)

(2008/C 183/66)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Applicant: David Spee (Rijswijk, Netherlands) (represented by: P. de Casparis, lawyer)

Defendant: European Police Office (Europol)

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Application for annulment of Europol's decision to withdraw the offer of employment for which the applicant had submitted an application and to subsequently republish it, and an application for damages

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

— Annul the decision of 7 January 2008 issued after a complaint and the underlying decisions of 20 June 2007 and 6 July 2007 to declare vacant once again the post of First Officer in the IMT1 Infrastructure Unit and not to appoint the applicant;

— Order Europol to search for an equitable solution to the situation in which the applicant finds himself following the rash and defective decision;

— Order Europol to pay damages to the applicant in the amount of EUR 5 000 net;
—

Annul the decision to omit the applicant from the definitive list of candidates pre-selected for the certification procedure 2007 and, consequently, the decision also to omit the applicant from the list of candidates pre-selected with the best marks and from the list of applicants admitted to the certification procedure;
—

Order that the Commission pay the applicant, by way of 100 % reimbursement of the medical expenses, the sum of EUR 4 747,29 or such lesser sum as the Court may consider appropriate, plus interest at the rate of 10 % per annum with annual capitalisation, or at such rate, with such capitalisation and from such date as the Court considers appropriate;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 44/77

Action brought on 23 December 2008 — Katrakasas v Commission

(Case F-103/08)

(2009/C 44/139)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Nicolas Katrakasas (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: L. Levi, and M. Vandenbussche, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the decision of the selection board in competition EPSO/AD/116/08 refusing to enter the name of the applicant on the list of candidates admitted to the written tests of the competition, and all subsequent decisions, including the reserve list and all appointments.

Form of order sought

— annul the decision of the selection board in competition EPSO/AD/116/08 dated 23 September 2008 refusing to enter the name of the applicant on the list of candidates admitted to the written tests;

— annul all decisions taken after the decision of 23 September 2008, including the reserve list and all appointments;
—

Order the European Commission to compensate the applicant for the non-pecuniary loss caused by the acts annulment of which is sought by the present action, in the amount of EUR 10 000 or such higher or lesser amount as the Court considers appropriate and equitable;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 113/46

Action brought on 27 February 2009 — Meister v OHIM

(Case F-17/09)

2009/C 113/95

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Herbert E. Meister (Alicante, Spain) (represented by: H.-J. Zimmermann, lawyer)

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

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the dismissal of the applicant’s complaint regarding the calculation of promotion points for the year 2008 and application for damages for infringement of the principles of proper personnel management

Form of order sought

— Annul the negative decision of the president of 20 December 2008 taken in relation to the internal complaint brought by the applicant under Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations of 20 August 2008;

— order the defendant to pay damages to the applicant, of an amount to be determined by the court;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 90/41

Action brought on 24 February 2009 — De Britto Patricio-Dias v Commission

(Case F-16/09)

2009/C 90/67

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Jorge de Britto Patricio-Dias (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: L. Massaux, lawyer)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the decision rejecting the applicant’s complaint against the decision relating to his appraisal during 2007

Form of order sought

The applicant claims the Tribunal should:

— Annul the Appointing Authority’s decision of 21 November 2008 and, so far as necessary, the career development report covering the period from 1 January 2007 to 31 December 2007;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 167/26

Action brought on 2 April 2009 — Doyle v Europol

(Case F-37/09)

2009/C 167/51

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Applicant: Margaret Doyle (Noordwijkerhout, the Netherlands) (represented by: P. de Casparis)

Defendant: European Police Office (Europol)

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the decision of 12 June 2008 informing the applicant that it was impossible to offer her a permanent post, and the decision of 7 January 2009 rejecting the complaint brought against the first decision.

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

— annul the decision of 12 June 2008 by which the defendant informed the applicant that it could not offer her a permanent post and the decision of 7 January 2009 in response to a complaint, stating that the objections which the applicant had raised to the decision of 12 June 2008 were unfounded;