ORDER OF THE EUROPEAN UNION CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL (Second Chamber)

14 March 2013

Case F‑63/08

Eugen Christoph

v

European Commission

(Civil service — Non-permanent staff — Articles 2, 3a and 3b of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants (CEOS) — Temporary staff — Contract staff — Auxiliary contract staff — Duration of contract — Articles 8 and 88 of the CEOS — Commission decision of 28 April 2004 on the maximum duration for the recourse to non-permanent staff in the Commission services — Directive 1999/70/EC — Applicability to the institutions)

Application: under Articles 236 EC and 152 EA, in which Mr Christoph and nine other applicants seek annulment of the decisions of the European Commission fixing their conditions of employment in so far as the duration of their contract or the extension thereof is limited to a fixed period.

Held: The action is dismissed as manifestly lacking any legal foundation. The applicants are to bear their own costs and are ordered to pay the costs incurred by the Commission. The Council of the European Union is to bear its own costs.

Summary

1. Judicial proceedings — Decision taken by way of reasoned order — Conditions — Action manifestly inadmissible or manifestly lacking any legal basis — Scope

(Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal, Art. 76)

2. Acts of the institutions — Directives –Directive 1999/70 implementing the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP — Obligations directly imposed on the Union institutions in their relations with their staff — Not included — Possibility of invoking — Scope

(Art. 288 TFEU; Conditions of Employment of Other Servants, Arts 8 and 88; Council Directive 1999/70, Annex, clause 5(1))

3. Social policy — Framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP — Directive 1999/70 — Stable employment — Scope — Entitlement to renewal of a contract — None

(Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 30; Council Directive 1999/70)

4. Officials — Conditions of Employment of Other Servants — Member of the auxiliary contract staff — Possibility of renewal depending on the needs of the institution concerned

(Conditions of Employment of Other Servants, Art. 88)

1. Under Article 76 of the Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal, where an action is, in whole or in part, manifestly inadmissible or manifestly lacking any foundation in law, the Tribunal may, by reasoned order, give a decision on the action without taking further steps in the proceedings.

The second situation referred to by that provision also includes any action that is manifestly bound to fail for reasons relating to the substance of the case. The dismissal of such an action by reasoned order pursuant to Article 76 of the Rules of Procedure not only helps to reduce the duration of the proceedings, particularly where they have been unusually long, but also saves the parties the costs necessarily involved in holding a hearing. That course of action is particularly warranted in a case where an applicant’s factual situation and the pleas in law and legal arguments raised are no different from those in another case in which the Courts of the European Union have already dismissed an action.

(see paras 30-31)

See:

27 September 2011, F‑105/06 Lübking and Others v Commission, para. 41

2. Directives are addressed to the Member States and not to the European Union institutions. Consequently, the provisions of Directive 1999/70 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP and the provisions of that framework agreement cannot be treated, as such, as imposing any obligations on the institutions in their relations with their staff. The provisions of Directive 1999/70 cannot therefore form, as such, the basis for a plea of illegality against Articles 8 and 88 of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants.

However, that fact cannot preclude the provisions of Directive 1999/70 and of the framework agreement from being relied on against an institution in relations with its officials and other staff where they constitute the expression of a general principle of law.

That is not true of the minimum requirements designed to prevent the abusive use of successive fixed-term employment contracts listed in clause 5(1) of the framework agreement. Those requirements do, admittedly, constitute rules of EU social law of particular importance, but do not, however, express general principles of law.

The provisions of Directive 1999/70 and of the framework agreement may, however, be relied on against an institution for the purpose of interpreting the rules of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants as far as possible in accordance with the objectives and minimum requirements of the framework agreement.

(see paras 44, 46, 49, 75)

See:

4 June 2009, F‑134/07 Adjemian and Others v Commission (‘Adjemian I’), paras 87, 96, 97 and 117; 11 July 2012, F‑85/10 AI v Court of Justice, para. 133

21 September 2011, T‑325/09 P Adjemian and Others v Commission (‘Adjemian II’), paras 52 and 56

3. While stable employment is regarded as a major element in the protection of workers, it does not constitute a general principle of law in the light of which the lawfulness of a measure adopted by an institution may be assessed. In particular, it by no means follows from Directive 1999/70 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP or from that framework agreement itself that stable employment has been made a general principle of law. Moreover, recitals 6 and 7 of the directive, as well as the first paragraph of the preamble to and recital 5 of the framework agreement highlight the need to achieve a balance between flexibility and security. Furthermore, the framework agreement does not lay down a general obligation, following a certain number of renewals of fixed-term contracts or completion of a certain period of work, for employers to provide for the conversion of those contracts into indefinite contracts.

Stable employment is, however, an aim pursued by the signatories to the framework agreement, clause 1(b) of which states that its purpose is to establish a framework to prevent abuse arising from the use of successive fixed-term contracts or relationships.

Furthermore, while Article 30 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights provides that every worker has the right to protection against unjustified dismissal, that article does not censure the use of successive fixed-term contracts. Moreover, the end of a fixed-term contract simply because it has reached its expiry does not constitute dismissal for which particular reasons must be given as regards ability, conduct or the institution’s operational needs.

(see paras 51-52, 55)

See:

30 April 2009, F‑65/07 Aayhan and Others v Parliament, para. 115; ‘Adjemian I’, paras 98 and 99

4. Every post as an auxiliary member of the contract staff must meet temporary or intermittent needs. The principal characteristic of contracts of employment as contract staff for auxiliary tasks is their insecurity over time, in line with the very purpose of such contracts, which is to arrange for occasional staff to perform duties which — by their nature or by virtue of the absence of a holder of the post — are insecure. In an administration with a large number of staff, such needs inevitably recur as a result, in particular, of officials’ unavailability, increased workloads at certain particular times, or the need, for each directorate-general, occasionally to engage persons with specific qualifications or knowledge. Those circumstances constitute reasons justifying both the fixed term of the contracts of members of the auxiliary staff and their renewal as and when those needs arise.

(see para. 69)

See:

‘Adjemian I’, para. 132

‘Adjemian II’, para. 86