ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
The appointing authority has the power to undertake a consideration of comparative merits according to the procedure or method which it considers most appropriate. There is no obligation for the institution concerned to adopt a particular appraisal and promotion system, given the wide margin of discretion which it has to implement the objectives of Article 45 of the Staff Regulations in accordance with its own needs for the organisation and management of its staff.

The discretion thereby conferred on the appointing authority is, however, circumscribed by the need to undertake a consideration of comparative merits with care and impartiality, in the interests of the service and in accordance with the principle of equal treatment. Accordingly, that consideration must be conducted on the basis of comparable sources of information.

While it cannot, admittedly, be argued that Article 43 of the Staff Regulations requires the use of an analytical and numerical assessment system, the obligation to conduct a comparison of merits on a basis of equality and using comparable sources of information, which is inherent in Article 45 of the Staff Regulations, requires a procedure or method capable of neutralising the subjectivity resulting from assessments made by different assessors.

Any assessment of the merits of officials in the context of the appraisal procedure generally and inherently involves a certain risk that the subjectivity of the various assessors will lead to heterogeneous results. In that regard, in order for a comparative consideration for the purposes of promotion to comply with the requirements laid down in Article 45 of the Staff Regulations, it is necessary and sufficient for the institutions to circumscribe the heterogeneous nature of the assessments, confining it as far as possible to the risk inherent in any appraisal procedure.

(see paras 24-26, 34)

Judgment of 1 July 1976 in de Wind v Commission, 62/75, EU:C:1976:103, para. 17

Judgments of 16 May 2006 in Magone v Commission, T‑73/05, EU:T:2006:127, para. 28; 19 October 2006 in Buendía Sierra v Commission, T‑311/04, EU:T:2006:329, paras 131 and 172 and the case-law cited therein, and 14 February 2007 in Simões Dos Santos v OHIM, T‑435/04, EU:T:2007:50, para. 132

Judgment of 15 January 2014 in Stols v Council, T‑95/12 P, EU:T:2014:3, para. 32

Judgments of 14 July 2011 in Praskevicius v Parliament, F‑81/10, EU:F:2011:120, para. 53; 28 September 2011 in AC v Council, F‑9/10, EU:F:2011:160, para. 16, and 18 March 2015 in Ribeiro Sinde Monteiro v EEAS, F‑51/14, EU:F:2015:11, para. 41, on appeal before the General Court of the European Union, Case T‑278/15 P
Furthermore, the appointing authority, while it has a broad discretion in selecting candidates, must adhere to the call for applications as it was published.

In view of the administration’s broad discretion in assessing and comparing the merits of candidates in any selection procedure, and particularly the certification procedure provided for in Article 45a of the Staff Regulations, the Tribunal’s review in this area must be confined to the question whether, having regard to the considerations which influenced the administration in making its assessment, the latter remained within reasonable bounds and did not use its power in a manifestly incorrect way or for purposes other than those for which that power was conferred on it. The Tribunal cannot therefore substitute its assessment of the merits and qualifications of the candidates for that of the administration where there is nothing in the file to suggest that, in assessing those merits and qualifications, the administration committed a manifest error.

There is a breach of the principle of equal treatment, which is applicable to the law of the European Union civil service, where two categories of persons whose factual and legal situations are not essentially different are treated differently and such a difference in treatment is not objectively justified.

In that regard, differences in treatment which are justified on the basis of objective and reasonable criteria and which are proportionate to the aim pursued by the differential treatment in question do not constitute a breach of the principle of equal treatment.

In this case, having regard to the fact that the person concerned had not undertaken a course of at least one year offered by a university establishment or professional association and attested by a diploma recognised by a Member State, and was not therefore awarded any points under this heading of the scoring grid contained in the call for applications, he is in a different factual situation from a candidate who can demonstrate that he has taken such a course. Accordingly, the appointing authority did not infringe the principle of equal treatment.

(see paras 26-28)

See:

Judgment of 22 December 2008in Centeno Mediavilla and Others v Commission, C‑443/07 P, EU:C:2008:767, para. 76

Judgment of 16 March 2004in Afari v ECB, T‑11/03, EU:T:2004:77, para. 65

Judgments of 23 January 2007in Chassange v Commission, F‑43/05, EU:F:2007:14, para. 91, and 25 February 2010in Pleijte v Commission, F‑91/08, EU:F:2010:13, para. 36
ORDER OF THE CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL

(Third Chamber)

18 November 2009

Case F-11/05 RENV

Olivier Chassagne

v

Commission of the European Communities

(Civil service – Referral back to the Tribunal after setting aside – No need to adjudicate)

Application: brought by Mr Chassagne under Articles 236 EC and 152 EA and registered under reference F‑11/05. By an order of 29 June 2006 in Case F-11/05 Chassagne v Commission (ECR-SC I‑A‑1‑65 and II‑A‑1‑241) the Civil Service Tribunal dismissed the applicant’s action as manifestly inadmissible. By a judgment on appeal of 19 September 2008 in Case T-253/06 P Chassagne v Commission ECR-SC I-B-1-0000 and II-B-1-0000, the General Court set aside the order of 29 June 2006 (Chassagne v Commission, cited above) and referred the case back to the Civil Service Tribunal.

Held: There is no need to adjudicate in Case F‑11/05 RENV Chassagne v Commission, which is removed from the register of the Tribunal. The Commission is ordered to pay the costs incurred by the applicant up to the delivery of the judgment of the General Court of 19 September 2008. Each party is ordered to bear its own costs incurred after delivery of that judgment.

Summary

Procedure – Applicant’s failure to act – Application devoid of purpose – No need to adjudicate

(Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal, Art. 75)

In the interest of the proper administration of justice, it is for the Civil Service Tribunal, in the light of an applicant’s persistent failure to act, to find of its own motion, in accordance with Article 75 of its Rules of Procedure, that an action has become devoid of purpose and that there is no longer any need to adjudicate on it.

(see para. 28)

See:

Judgment of 20 June 2008 in T-299/06 Leclercq v Commission, not published in the ECR
Staff case summary



Staff case summary

Summary

1. Officials – Actions – Prior administrative complaint – None – Inadmissibility – Exceptions

(Staff Regulations, Arts 90(2) and 91(2), and Annex III, Art. 1(1))

2. Officials – Actions – Subject-matter – Direction to the administration – Inadmissibility

(Staff Regulations, Art. 91)

1. Under Article 91(2) of the Staff Regulations, an appeal to the Community judicature is admissible only if a complaint against the act adversely affecting the person concerned has previously been submitted to the appointing authority pursuant to Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations.

Save where the appeal is brought against an act which does not emanate from the appointing authority itself, such as a decision taken by a competition selection board or a staff report, a failure to lodge a prior complaint within the time-limit prescribed renders the appeal manifestly inadmissible.

In that regard, Article 1(1) of Annex III to the Staff Regulations provides that a notice of competition is an act drawn up by the appointing authority. For a notice of competition to be disputed, therefore, a complaint must first be lodged under Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations.

(see paras 35-37)

See:

317/85 Pomar v Commission [1987] ECR 2467, paras 11 and 13

T-133/89 Burban v Parliament [1990] ECR II‑245, para. 17; T-1/91 Della Pietra v Commission [1992] ECR II‑2145, para. 23; T-208/00 Barleycorn Mongolue and Boixader Rivas v Council and Parliament [2001] ECR-SC I‑A‑103 and II‑479, paras 30 to 32

2. It is not for the Community judicature to issue directions to the administration or to make declaratory rulings in the context of a review of legality under Article 91 of the Staff Regulations.

(see para. 42)

See:

T-94/92 X v Commission [1994] ECR-SC I‑A‑149 and II‑481, para. 33; T‑21/95 and T‑186/95 Mazzocchi-Alemanni v Commission [1996] ECR-SC I‑A‑501 and II‑1377, para. 44; T-187/01 Mellone v Commission [2002] ECR-SC I‑A‑81 and II‑389, para. 16; T-14/03 Di Marzio v Commission [2004] ECR-SC I‑A‑43 and II‑167, para. 63
ORDER OF THE CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL

(Second Chamber)

25 April 2007

Case F-59/06

Petrus Kerstens

v

Commission of the European Communities

(Officials – Appraisal – Career development report – Time-limit for complaints – Delay – Manifest inadmissibility)

Application: brought under Articles 236 EC and 152 EA, in which Mr Kerstens seeks annulment of his career development report for 2004, as finalised on 11 July 2005 by the appeal assessor, and of the decision of 6 February 2006 of the appointing authority dismissing the applicant’s complaint against his 2004 career development report.

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

Summary

1. Officials – Actions – Prior administrative complaint – Time-limits

(Staff Regulations, Arts 25, 43 and 90(2))

2. Officials – Actions – Prior administrative complaint – Date when lodged

(Staff Regulations, Art. 90(2))

1. For a decision to be duly notified, within the meaning of Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations, it must not only have been communicated to its addressee, but the addressee must also have been able to have effective knowledge of its content. It follows that, in a case where an official receives information, sent electronically, that the decision making his staff report definitive has been adopted and that it is accessible on the institution’s internal computer system, the time-limits for lodging a complaint or appeal begin to run from the time when the person concerned accesses the system, opens the file relating to his report and is thus able to have effective knowledge of its content.

In that respect, the reliability of the dates and times of consultation, as evidenced by the internal computer system records, cannot be called into doubt merely on the basis of allegations of a risk of data manipulation, without those serious accusations being based on sufficiently accurate, consistent and relevant evidence concerning the circumstances of the case.

(see paras 34-36)

See:

5/76 Jänsch v Commission [1976] ECR 1027, para. 10

T-507/04 Bravo-Villasante v Commission [2005] ECR-SC I‑A‑361 and II‑1609, para. 29; T-311/04 Buendía Sierra v Commission [2006] ECR II‑4137, para. 121

2. Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations must be interpreted as meaning that the complaint is ‘lodged’ not when it is sent to the institution, but when it reaches that institution.

(see para. 39)

See:

195/80 Michel v Parliament [1981] ECR 2861, paras 8 and 13

T-54/90 Lacroix v Commission [1991] ECR II‑749, paras 28 and 29

F-3/05 Schmit v Commission [2006] ECR-SC I‑A‑1‑9 and II‑A‑1‑33, para. 28
ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE FIRST CHAMBER OF THE CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL

22 January 2008

Case F-106/06

Anže Erbežnik

v

European Parliament

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

Application: brought under Articles 236 EC and 152 EA, in which Mr Erbežnik, referring to his lawful non-marital relationship with Miss Horvat, essentially seeks annulment of the Parliament’s decision granting him the installation allowance at the rate provided for officials who are not entitled to the household allowance, the action relating in particular to the first third of that allowance, which, pursuant to Article 5(1) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations and Article 24 of the Conditions of Employment of Other Agents, and following the applicant’s request for payment in May 2005, was paid to him in accordance with the Parliament’s decision of 2 June 2005; alternatively, the applicant asks the Tribunal to oblige the Parliament to take into account the change in his family status for the parts of the allowance paid after his marriage in August 2005.

Held: Case F‑106/06 Erbežnik v Parliament is removed from the register of the Tribunal. The Parliament is ordered to pay the applicant the sum of EUR 6 000 in respect of the costs and expenses he incurred. The Parliament 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 Civil Service Tribunal, Arts 69 and 74)
Staff case summary



Staff case summary

Summary

1. Officials – Actions – Right to bring an action – Persons claiming the status of officials or of staff other than local staff

(Staff Regulations, Arts 90 and 91)

2. Officials – Staff Regulations – Conditions of Employment of Other Servants – Scope

(Arts 238 EC and 282 EC; Conditions of Employment of Other Servants, Arts 1, 2, 3 and 5)

1. Not only persons enjoying the status of officials or of staff other than local staff may bring an action before the Court to contest a decision adversely affecting them, but also persons claiming that status, since the Community courts have jurisdiction at least to examine as a preliminary issue whether they do in fact have jurisdiction as to the admissibility and merits of a case.

(see paras 64-65)

See:

65/74 Porrini and Others [1975] ECR 319, para. 13; 116/78 Bellintani and Others v Commission [1979] ECR 1585, para. 6; 123/84 Klein v Commission [1985] ECR 1907, para. 10

T‑74/98 Mammarella v Commission [1999] ECR-SC I‑A‑151 and II‑797, para. 16

2. The Staff Regulations and the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants do not constitute an exhaustive body of rules prohibiting the employment of persons otherwise than within the framework of those rules. On the contrary, the Community’s powers under Articles 282 EC and 238 EC to conclude contracts governed by the law of a Member State extends to contracts of employment or contracts for the provision of services. In those circumstances, recruitment of a person under a contract that makes express reference to the law of a particular State may be regarded as unlawful only where the defendant institution has laid down the conditions of employment of the person concerned, not in order to meet the needs of the service, but in order to avoid application of the provisions of the Staff Regulations or the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants, thereby committing an abuse of process.

In order to ensure that the institution did not commit an abuse of process, it is not sufficient to establish that it is entitled to regard the various types of contract provided for in the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants and subject to the jurisdiction of the Community courts as not being suited to the situation of staff to whom it wishes to entrust certain missions, it is also necessary to ascertain whether the conditions of employment offered to those staff meet the minimum social requirements applying in any State governed by the rule of law.

(see paras 70, 87)

See:

Mammarella v Commission , paras 39 and 40, and the case-law cited therein
ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL

30 January 2008

Case F-64/07 R

S

v

European Parliament

(Civil service – Procedure for interim relief – Application for suspension of operation of a measure – Urgency – None)

Application: brought under Articles 242 EC, 243 EC, 157 EA and 158 EA, in which S seeks suspension of the operation of the Parliament’s decision of 27 July 2006 reassigning him to Brussels as adviser to the Director General for Information.

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

Summary

1. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Urgency – Serious and irreparable damage

(Arts 242 EC and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal, Art. 102(2))

2. Applications for interim measures – Conditions of admissibility – Application – Formal requirements

(Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal, Art. 102(2))

1. The urgency of an application for interim measures must be assessed in relation to the necessity for an interim order to prevent serious and irreparable damage to the party applying for those measures. It is for that party to prove that it cannot wait for the outcome of the main proceedings without suffering damage of that kind. Although it is correct that, in order to establish the existence of serious and irreparable damage, it is not necessary for the occurrence of the damage to be demonstrated with absolute certainty, it being sufficient to show that damage is foreseeable with a sufficient degree of probability, the applicant is required to prove the facts forming the basis of his claim that serious and irreparable damage is likely.

(see paras 30-31)

See:

T-111/99 R Samper v Parliament [1999] ECR-SC I‑A‑111 and II‑609, para. 38; T‑192/01 R Lior v Commission [2001] ECR II‑3657, para. 49; T-275/02 R D v EIB [2002] ECR-SC I‑A‑259 and II‑1295, paras 59 and 60

2. Under Article 102(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal applications for interim measures must state, in particular, the pleas of fact and law establishing a prima facie case for the interim measures applied for.

(see para. 38)
ORDER OF THE CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL (First Chamber)

19 October 2007

Case F-23/07

M

v

European Medicines Agency (EMEA)

(Civil service – Officials – Invalidity – Invalidity Committee – Refusal to convene – Manifest inadmissibility)

Application: brought under Articles 236 EC and 152 EA, in which M seeks annulment of the decision of the EMEA of 25 October 2006 rejecting his application for an Invalidity Committee to be convened, and of the decision of the EMEA of 31 January 2007 rejecting his claim for compensation.

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

Summary

1. Officials – Actions – Act adversely affecting an official – Decision repeating the position adopted in the initial decision – Act merely confirming a decision – Inadmissibility

(Staff Regulations, Arts 90 and 91)

2. Officials – Actions – Action for annulment not brought within the time-limit – Action for damages aiming to achieve the same result – Inadmissibility

(Staff Regulations, Arts 90 and 91)

1. A decision by which the administration, in the absence of any change in the state of health of the official in question, merely repeats its refusal to convene an Invalidity Committee is an act merely confirming a decision and not a new decision having the effect of setting the time-limit for appeal running again, even if that decision is taken in the light of a medical report which was not available when the administration adopted its initial position.

(see paras 40, 43)

See:

214/85 Gherardi Dandolo v Commission [1987] ECR 2163, paras 15 to 17

2. An action for damages is not admissible where the official seeks to obtain the same result as he would have obtained had he been successful in an action for annulment which he failed to commence in due time. An official who has failed to bring, within the periods laid down in Articles 90 and 91 of the Staff Regulations, an action for annulment of a measure alleged to have adversely affected him cannot repair that omission and thus obtain further time for bringing proceedings by lodging a claim for compensation for the damage caused by that measure.

(see para. 45)

See:

346/87 Bossi v Commission [1989] ECR 303, para. 32

T-20/92 Moat v Commission [1993] ECR II‑799, para. 46; T-147/04 Ross v Commission [2005] ECR-SC I‑A‑171 and II‑771, para. 48
ORDER OF THE CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL

(First Chamber)

7 October 2009

Case F-122/07

Luigi Marcuccio

v

Commission of the European Communities

(Civil service – Officials – Request for investigation – Refusal of an institution to translate a decision into the language chosen by the applicant – Manifest inadmissibility – Application manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

Application: brought under Articles 236 EC and 152 EA, in which Mr Marcuccio seeks, principally, annulment of the Commission’s decision rejecting his request that an investigation be carried out in relation to certain events with which he claims to have been confronted during 2001 and 2003, as well as an order that the Commission pay him damages.

Held: The applicant’s action is dismissed as being, in part, manifestly inadmissible and, in part, as manifestly lacking any foundation in law. The applicant is ordered to pay the costs.

Summary

Officials – Administration’s duty to have regard for the welfare of officials – Obligation to address to an official an individual decision worded in a language of which he has a thorough knowledge

(Art. 21 EC; Charter of Fundamental Rights, Art. 41(4); Rules of Procedure of the Commission, Annex, para. 4)

The institutions are under a duty to have regard for the welfare of their officials and therefore to address to an official an individual decision worded in a language of which he has a thorough knowledge.

It cannot be inferred from the third paragraph of Article 21 EC, or from paragraph 4 of the Code of good administrative conduct, or from Article 41(4) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights that every decision addressed by a Community institution to one of its officials should be drawn up in the initial language of correspondence. Those provisions are applicable to relations between the institutions and their staff only where the latter address a document to the institutions solely in their capacity as citizens of the European Union and not in their capacity as officials or other staff of the Communities. If the institutions were obliged, in all events, to reply to a request from an official in the same language as that used in that request, it would result in insurmountable difficulties for the institutions.

(see paras 60-65)

See:

T-197/98 Rudolph v Commission [2000] ECR-SC I‑A‑55 and II‑241, para. 46; T-118/99 Bonaiti Brighina v Commission [2001] ECR-SC I‑A‑25 and II‑97, para. 13; T-95/04 Lavagnoli v Commission [2006] ECR-SC I‑A‑2‑121 and II‑A‑2‑569, para. 48

F‑51/05 and F‑18/06 Duyster v Commission [2007] ECR-SC I‑A‑1‑0000 and II‑A‑1‑0000, paras 58 and 59