ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Third Chamber)

25 June 1998

Case T-185/97

Philippe Godts

v

Commission of the European Communities

‛Member of the temporary staff — Contract of limited duration — Possibility of extension — Actual extension — Application for annulment — Manifest inadmissibility’

Full text in French II-893

Application for:

annulment of the Commission's decision of 1 August 1996 expressly rejecting the applicant's request that his contract as a member of the temporary staff be extended and, in the alternative, annulment of the Commission's decision of 11 March 1997 expressly rejecting his complaint.

Decision:

Application dismissed.

Abstract of the Order

Pursuant to a Commission decision of 12 July 1988 on the policy adopted towards members of the temporary staff, as amended by a decision of 18 March 1992, temporary staff contracts to fill temporary posts may be concluded for a maximum of five years.

On 16 March 1994 the Commission announced that before the following summer consideration would be given to adopting new guidelines for its temporary staff policy and that in the meantime new temporary staff contracts would be limited to three years.

On 23 September 1994 the Commission offered the applicant a three-year post as a member of the temporary staff and drew his attention to the fact that, owing to the new guidelines which it proposed to adopt in the near future, there was no guarantee that his contract would subsequently be extended. By letter of 30 September 1994 the Commission sent the applicant a contract of employment and again pointed out that there was no guarantee that it would be extended. On 1 October 1994 the applicant took up a post with the Commission as a Grade A 7 member of the temporary staff and on 6 October 1994 he signed his contract of employment, which, according to Article 4, was for a fixed term of three years.

On 4 June 1996 the applicant, who considered that he was uncertain of the scope of his rights and that he had received no information about the new guidelines for the temporary staff policy, submitted a request within the meaning of Article 90(1) of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communities (Staff Regulations) - which applies by analogy to members of the temporary staff by virtue of Article 46 of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Communities (RAA) - to the authority responsible for concluding contracts of employment (AHCC). In that request he formally asked that the Commission should apply to him its former policy in respect of temporary staff or any other subsequent practice which would allow him to obtain an extension of his contract or a contract of indefinite length.

By letter of 1 August 1996, which was notified to the applicant on 5 August 1996, the Commission informed him that his request had been rejected. The reason for rejecting it was essentially that the new guidelines adopted in 1994 for its policy in respect of temporary staff, although adopted as an interim measure, contained no undertaking to extend the contracts of the staff members concerned.

On 24 September 1996 the applicant submitted a complaint within the meaning of Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations against the decision rejecting his request. He claimed that since no new guidelines for the policy in respect of temporary staff had been issued within the period referred to by the Commission the interim approach referred to in the decision of 16 March 1994 had become devoid of meaning and purpose. Consequently, the rules concerning the temporary staff policy set out in the decision of 18 March 1992 continued to apply.

On 13 November 1996 the Commission adopted a decision (SEC(96) 1940/6) definitively reconsidering its temporary staff policy. That decision, which was notified to the staff on 14 November 1996, states that the contracts of members of the temporary staff recruited after 15 April 1994 are concluded for a maximum of three years and may be renewed for one year where the needs of the service so require, thus extending the maximum length of the contract to four years. These temporary staff members are also eligible to sit an internal competition for the purpose of becoming established.

By decision of 11 March 1997 the AHCC rejected the applicant's complaint.

On 2 July 1997 the AHCC decided to extend the applicant's contract of employment until 30 September 1998, thus increasing the total duration of his contract to four years.

Admissibility

Under Article 111 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, where the action is manifestly inadmissible or manifestly unfounded the Court may, without following the procedure, decide the matter by reasoned order. In this case the Court considers that it has sufficient information before it to determine the present action without any oral procedure (paragraph 21).

The Court points out, first, that the action is manifestly inadmissible in so far as it seeks a declaration that the Commission decision of 18 March 1992 is applicable to the applicant. First, it is settled law that it is not for the Court, in proceedings brought under Article 91 of the Staff Regulations, to make declarations of principle or to issue directions to Community institutions. Second, where an act is annulled the institution concerned is required by Article 176 of the EC Treaty to take the measures necessary to comply with the judgment. In any event, the Court cannot compel the Commission to apply a decision where it has repealed that decision by adopting a subsequent decision (paragraph 28).

See: T-28/96 Chew v Commission [1997] ECR-SC II-497, para. 17; T-19/97 Richter v Commission [1997] ECR-SC II-1019, para. 60

Second, in so far as the action seeks the annulment of the Commission's alleged decision of 1 August 1996 to the extent to which it limits the possibility of the applicant's contract being extended, it must be regarded as manifestly inadmissible since the decision in question does not adversely affect the applicant within the meaning of Article 91(1) of the Staff Regulations (paragraph 29).

It is settled case-law that only a measure which directly and immediately affects the legal situation of the person concerned can be regarded as adversely affecting him. The contested decision merely states that the Commission is not required to extend the applicant's contract. It therefore does not adopt a position on the possibility of extending the applicant's contract and, accordingly, does not affect his legal situation (paragraph 30).

See: T-14/91 Weyrich v Commission [1991] ECR II-235, para 35

Consequently, the action, in so far as it is directed against the alleged decision rejecting the complaint of 11 March 1997, is also manifestly inadmissible (paragraph 31).

Third, the action must likewise be considered manifestly inadmissible in so far as it seeks a declaration that the Commission's decision of 13 November 1996 is illegal, that is, essentially, in so far as it challenges the restriction of the possibility of extending his contract. If the applicant considered that the decision adversely affected him or wished to challenge the validity of that limitation the proper course of action was to initiate the appropriate procedure, in accordance with Articles 90 and 91 of the Staff Regulations and Article 179 of the Treaty. It is common ground in the present case, however, that the applicant submitted no request and/or lodged no complaint disputing the scope of that decision or of any measure applying it (paragraph 32).

Consequently, the action must be rejected in its entirety as manifestly inadmissible (paragraph 33).

Operative part:

The application is dismissed.