Judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 12 February 2020 –

WD v EFSA

(Case T‑320/18)

(Civil service — Temporary agents — Fixed term contract — Decision not to reclassify — Lack of staff reports — Carrying forward reclassification points — Manifest error of assessment — Non-renewal decision — Duty of care — Manifest error of assessment — Misuse of power — Principle of the protection of legitimate expectations — Duty to state reasons — Right to a hearing — Liability)

1. Actions brought by officials — Action against a decision rejecting a complaint — Effect — Disputed measure referred to the Court — Exception — Decision not confirmatory in character — Account taken of the reasoning therein (Staff Regulations of Officials, Arts 90 and 91) (see paras 22-25)

2. Officials — Regrading — Internal directive of an EU agency on the reclassification of temporary agents — Legal effects (Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union, Art. 10) (see para. 38)

3. Officials — Regrading — Right to reclassification — None — Candidate having reached the reference threshold — Irrelevant (Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union, Art. 54) (see paras 49-51, 81)

4. Officials — Regrading — Consideration of comparative merits — Procedures — Taking account of staff reports — Incomplete personal file — Consequences (Staff Regulations of Officials, Arts 43 and 45; Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union, Arts 15(2) and 54) (see paras 60-63, 73)

5. Officials — Members of the temporary staff — Action brought against a decision not to reclassify — Plea alleging irregularity of decisions to award reclassification points not contested within the time limits — Not permissible (Staff Regulations of Officials, Arts 90 and 91) (see paras 66-68)

6. Officials — Regrading — Consideration of comparative merits — Administration's discretion — Judicial review — Limits (Staff Regulations of Officials, Art. 45; Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union, Art. 54) (see paras 79, 80, 82)

7. Actions brought by officials — Act adversely affecting an official –Meaning — Decision not to renew a contract — Decision separate from the contract — Included (Staff Regulations of Officials, Arts 25, second para. and 90(2)) (see paras 102, 103)

8. Officials — Decision adversely affecting an official — Obligation to state reasons — Scope — No statement of reasons — Rectified in the response to the complaint (Art. 296 TFEU; Staff Regulations of Officials, Art. 25, second para.) (see paras 104-106, 109)

9. Actions brought by officials — Grounds — Lack of or inadequate statement of reasons — Separate ground from the one concerning substantive legality (Staff Regulations of Officials, Art. 25, second para.) (see para. 110)

10. Officials — Members of the temporary staff — Recruitment — Non-renewal of a fixed-term contract — Decision adopted without first giving the interested party the opportunity to comment — Infringement of the right to be heard — None (Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 41(2)(a)) (see paras 115-119, 124)

11. Officials — Members of the temporary staff — Recruitment — Renewal of a fixed-term contract — Administration's discretion — Administration's duty to have regard for the interests of officials — Account taken of the interests of the staff member concerned — Judicial review — Limits (Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union, Art. 8) (see paras 129-135, 137, 150, 154, 167, 174)

12. Officials — Principles — Protection of legitimate expectations — Conditions — Specific assurances given by the authorities (see paras 177, 178)

13. Actions brought by officials — Application for damages linked to an application for annulment — Dismissal of claim for annulment leading to dismissal of the claim for compensation (Staff Regulations of Officials, Arts 90 and 91) (see paras 182-184)

Re:

Application based on Article 270 TFEU seeking, first, the annulment of the EFSA’s decision of 14 July 2017 not to reclassify the applicant at Grade AST 6 in the 2017 reclassification exercise, the EFSA’s decision of 9 August 2017 not to renew her contract, and the decisions of 9 February and 12 March 2018 dismissing the complaints against those two decisions and, second, seeking compensation for the material and non-material damage the applicant claims to have suffered as a result of those decisions.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the application;