EN
ReportsofCases
ECLI:EU:F:2010 :121 1JUDGMENT O F THE CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL (First Ch amber)
30 September 2010
Case F-43/09
Carlo van H euckelom
v
European Po lice Office (Europol)
(Civil service — Staff Regulations of Europol — Article 29 — Advancement in step g ranted on th e 
basis of staff reports — Plea of illegality of the decision e stablishing the policy for determining grades 
and steps — Respective p owers of Europol’s Director and M anagement Board — Europol’s Director’s 
discretion — Limits)
Application:brought u nder Article 40(3) of the Convention b ased on A rticle K. 3 of the Treaty on 
European U nion, on th e e stablishment of a E uropean P olice O ffice (Europol 
Convention), and Article 93(1) of the Staff Regulations applicable to Europol emp loyees, 
in which M r van Heuckelom seeks annulment of the decision o f the Director of Europol 
of 14 July 2008 a warding him ad vancement of a s ingle step from 1 April 2008 , and of the 
decision o f 19 January 2009 r ejecting his complaint against the first decision.
Held: The applicant’s action is dismissed. Each party is ordered to bear its own costs.
Summ ary
1. Actions for annulment — Interest in bringing proceedings — Natural or legal persons
(Art. 263, fourth para., TFEU)
2. Officials — Actions — Prior administrative complaint — Correspondence between the complaint and 
the application — Same subject-matter and legal basis — Plea of illegality relating to a l egal cause of 
action other than that set out in the complaint — Admissibility
(Staff Regulations, Arts 90 a nd 91)
3. Officials — Staff of Europol — Two-yearly advancement in step
(Europol Staff Regulations, Arts 28 a nd 29)
4. Officials — Staff of Europol — Two-yearly advancement in step
(Europol Staff Regulations, Art. 29)
1. An action f or annulment brought b y a n atural or legal person is ad missible on ly in so far as that 
person h as an interest in th e annulment of the contested me asure. In order for such an interest to be 
present, th e annulment of the me asure must of itself be capable of having legal consequences or, in 
accordance with a di fferent form o f words, the action m ust be liable, if successful, to procure an 
advantage for the party who has brought it.
2 ECLI:EU:F:2010 :121SUMM ARY—CASEF-43/09
VANHEUCKELOMvEUROPOL
(see para. 31)
See:
53/85 A KZO Chemie and AKZO Chemie UK v C omm ission [1986 ] ECR 1965 , para. 21
T-480/93 a nd T-483/93 A ntillean Ri ce Mills and Others v C omm ission [1995 ] ECR II-2305 , paras 59 a nd 60 a nd the 
case-law c ited th erein; T-188/99 Eu roalliages v C omm ission [2001 ] ECR II- 1757 , para. 26; T-310/00 M CI v 
Comm ission [2004 ] ECR II-3253 , para. 44
2. The rule of correspondence between ad ministrative c omplaint and legal action r equires, in 
substance, that the relief sought and the cause of action s hould be the same i n th e application a nd in 
the complaint. That requirement is to be interpreted flexibly. The correspondence rule can th erefore 
apply on ly where the judicial action a lters the relief sought in the complaint or its cause of action, and 
the concept of ‘cause of action’ must be given a b road i nterpretation. According to such an 
interpretation, as regards claims for annulment, th e ‘cause of action o f th e di spute’ must be 
understood as the applicant’s challenge to th e substantive legality of the contested decision o r, in th e 
alternative, the challenge to its procedural legality.
As regards pleas of illegality, eve n where they relate to a l egal cause of action o ther than that set out in 
the complaint, to hold th em i nadmissible for breach of the correspondence rule would upset the 
balance between th e protection o f the official’s procedural rights and th e purpose pursued by th e 
pre-contentious procedure and would amount to a di sproportionate and unjustified pe nalty for the 
official. Given th e intrinsically legal nature of a p lea of illegality, and also of the reasoning which 
underlies contemp lating and th en pleading illegality of this nature, the official or servant who lodges 
the complaint, and who does no t necessarily have th e appropriate legal expertise, cannot be required 
to formulate such a p lea at the pre-contentious stage, failing which it will be declared inadmissible in 
the legal proceedings. That is particularly so since to rai se a p lea of illegality at the pre-contentious 
stage seems hardly liable to result in th e complainant being successful at th at stage, as th e 
administration is unlikely to choose to disapply a p rovision in force, on th e ground of the provision’s 
possible non -compliance with a h igher-ranking rule, for the sole purpose of allowing an extrajudicial 
resolution o f the dispute.
(see paras 43-44)
See:
judgment of 1 July 2010 i n F-45/07 M andt v P arliament, paras 109, 115 a nd 119 a nd the case-law cited therein, and 
para. 121
3. The system f or determining grades and steps in force in Europol involves two separate procedures: 
first, pe riodical reports, which are the subject of Article 28 o f the Europol Staff Regulations and which 
are th e responsibility of the reporting officer, and second, advancement in steps, provided for in 
Article 29 o f those Staff Regulations, for which the Director of Europol is responsible.
According to th e first sentence of the first paragraph of Article 29 o f the Europol Staff Regulations, 
decisions of the Director of Europol concerning th e award o f two-yearly steps to Europol staff ar e 
adopted on th e basis of an ‘assessment’, which takes into account the pe rformance of each official 
concerned. It follows that, where the third s entence of the first paragraph of Article 29 o f the Europol 
Staff Regulations provides that ‘further details on th e assessment procedure shall be laid d own by the
ECLI:EU:F:2010 :121 3SUMM ARY—CASEF-43/09
VANHEUCKELOMvEUROPOL
 Management Board’, that provision r efers to the procedure by which the pe rformance of Europol staff 
is evaluated and assessed. It thus does no t require the Europol Management Board t o lay down details 
on th e procedure relating to ad vancement in step.
(see paras 48-50)
See:
T-209/02 a nd T-210/04 M ausolf v Eu ropol [2006 ] ECR-SC I-A-2-79 a nd II-A-2-335, para. 37
4. Under Article 29 o f the Europol Staff Regulations, the Director may award a m aximum o f two 
incremental points eve ry two years, on th e basis of an assessment, taking into account th e 
performance of the official concerned. The application o f that article falls within an area in which th e 
Director of Europol has a w ide discretion, similar to th at enjoyed by th e appointing authority in 
applying Article 45 o f the Staff Regulations of Officials.
Article 5(1) of the policy for determining grades and steps of Europol staff, adopted by the Director, 
determines th e criteria f or th e award o f incremental points. Taking th e two m ost recent annual 
assessments as a b asis, the Director awards two incremental points to staff who have consistently or 
frequently exceeded expectations, no i ncremental points to th ose who have no t, or on ly partly, me t 
expectations, and on e incremental point to all other staff.
It is clear from A rticle 5(1) th at th e D irector awards two incremental points on ly w here th e 
performance of the staff mem ber concerned has been particularly outstanding and has more than me t 
expectations during both y ears of the reference pe riod. Those criteria, albeit very demanding, are 
designed to reward c onsistent effort. It cannot be denied that the policy of encouraging staff to pe rsist 
in th eir efforts to exceed expectations, adopted by the Director of Europol in exercising the discretion 
conferred on h im by Article 29 o f the Europol Staff Regulations, seeks to benefit the interests of the 
service.
Since the Director does no t have any discretion in applying Article 5(1) of the aboveme ntioned policy 
and m ust strictly ad here to th e criteria l aid d own by that provision, the ve ry fact that his power as 
regards ad vancement in step i s circumscribed b y th ose criteria e nables him t o ensure th at 
candida tures are examined carefully, fairly and in accordance with th e principle of equal treatment.
(see paras 59, 61-63)
See:
Mausolf v Eu ropol, para. 67