ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Staff case summary



Staff case summary

Summary

Officials – Staff of the European Central Bank – Action – Act adversely affecting an official – Definition – Confirmatory act – Not included

(Protocol on the Statute of the European System of Central Banks and of the European Central Bank, Art. 36.2; Staff Regulations, Arts 90 and 91; Conditions of Employment for Staff of the European Central Bank, Art. 42)

The case-law according to which the act adversely affecting the applicant is the act that directly and immediately affects the legal situation of the person concerned, which is not how a purely confirmatory measure, such as an act which contains no new factors as compared with a previous measure adversely affecting the applicant, can be described, must be applied by analogy to actions based on Article 36.2 of the Protocol on the Statute of the European System of Central Banks and of the European Central Bank and on Article 42 of the Conditions of Employment for Staff of the European Central Bank.

(see paras 41-43)

See:

204/85 Stroghili v Court of Auditors [1987] ECR 389, para. 6

T-14/91 Weyrich v Commission [1991] ECR II‑235, para. 35; T‑173/95 Biedermann and Others v Court of Auditors [1998] ECR‑SC I‑A‑273 and II‑831, para. 39
Staff case summary



Staff case summary

Summary

Officials – Remuneration – Expatriation allowance – Conditions for granting

(Staff Regulations, Annex VII, Art. 4(1)(b))

In the exercise of the broad discretion it has to fix the conditions for entitlement to payment of the expatriation allowance, the Community legislature may subject officials with dual nationality to the normal rules – even if they are not in a comparable situation to that of persons of single nationality – in order to restrict the number of people receiving the expatriation allowance payable pursuant to Article 4(1)(b) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations. Strict conditions, such as not having any habitual residence in the country of employment for 10 years prior to entering the service, are intended to ensure that the allowance is granted to officials with the nationality of their country of employment only where the presumption is rebutted that a person’s nationality is a serious indication that he has numerous ties with the country of his nationality, and where it is established that any lasting tie between the official and that country has been broken.

That restriction of the number of people receiving the expatriation allowance does not constitute arbitrary or inappropriate discrimination in relation to the objective pursued by Article 4 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations. The fact that the application of the categories laid down in Article 4 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations may give rise to marginal cases in which officials find that payment of the expatriation allowance is denied to them when their circumstances are close to those defined by that article does not imply that the provisions in question contain arbitrary differentiation, when, based on objective factors, they apply in the same manner to all officials who are placed in the situation contemplated by the Staff Regulations.

(see paras 39-41, 45-46)

See:

147/79 Hochstrass v Court of Justice [1980] ECR 3005, para. 12; 1322/79 Vutera v Commission [1981] ECR 127, para. 9; C-148/02 Garcia Avello [2003] ECR I‑11613, paras 31 to 37

T-18/91 Costacurta Gelabert v Commission [1992] ECR II‑1655, para. 42; T‑18/98 Reichert v Parliament [2000] ECR-SC I‑A‑73 and II‑309, para. 25; T‑317/99 Lemaître v Commission [2000] ECR-SC I‑A‑191 and II‑867, para. 50; T‑251/02 E v Commission [2004] ECR-SC I‑A‑359 and II‑1643, paras 124 and 126
Staff case summary



Staff case summary

Summary

Officials – Promotion – Consideration of comparative merits – Procedures – Quantification of merits through the allocation of points

(Staff Regulations, Art. 45)

Where, in the procedure for allocating merit points, the administration has a limited number of points which it allocates to officials on the basis of a consideration of their comparative merits, that comparison must be undertaken on a basis of equality and the points must be allocated to the most deserving officials in descending order of merit, until the quota of points has been exhausted. Where it is found, in the consideration of comparative merits undertaken, that certain officials have equivalent merits, those officials must be allocated an identical number of merit points. Should there be an insufficient number of points, the choice between those officials must be made on the basis of secondary considerations. While the level of responsibilities may be a decisive factor in promotion, as provided for in Article 45 of the Staff Regulations, it is on condition that that level is assessed in a comparison between officials with the same merit, and not in a comparison of an official’s responsibilities from one year to the next.

Therefore, a decision to allocate only a certain number of merit points to an official solely on the ground that his merits are not greater than those of officials who obtained more points infringes the principle of equal treatment and contravenes Article 45 of the Staff Regulations, since the administration thereby demands that that official’s level of performance should not be equal to but greater than that of his colleagues.

(see paras 38-40, 45-47)

See:

T-311/04 Buendía Sierra v Commission [2006] ECR II‑4137, para. 93 in fine
JUDGMENT OF THE CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL

(Third Chamber)

25 April 2007

Case F-50/06

Maddalena Lebedef-Caponi

v

Commission of the European Communities

(Officials – Appraisal – Career development report – 2001/2002 appraisal – General Provisions for Implementing Article 43 of the Staff Regulations – Article 26 of the Staff Regulations)

Application: brought under Articles 236 EC and 152 EA, in which Ms Lebedef-Caponi seeks annulment of her career development report for the period 1 July 2001 to 31 December 2002.

Held: Ms Lebedef-Caponi’s career development report for the period 1 July 2001 to 31 December 2002 is annulled. The Commission is ordered to pay the costs.

Summary

Acts of the institutions – Withdrawal – Unlawful acts – Extent in the event of a procedural defect

Where the administration decides to withdraw an act because of a procedural defect in its adoption, just as where it replaces a decision annulled by the Community judicature because of a procedural defect, it has the discretion to repeat the whole of the adoption procedure without confining itself to what is necessary to rectify the defect identified. Consequently, if, when withdrawing an act, the administration gives the person concerned a formal assurance that it will repeat the adoption procedure from the beginning, it cannot, without breaching the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations, go back on the undertaking it has given by limiting the extent of the withdrawal merely to those phases of the procedure that were unlawful.

(see paras 38, 45-46)
JUDGMENT OF THE CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL (Second Chamber)

13 December 2007

Case F-108/06

Tamara Diomede Basili

v

Commission of the European Communities

(Civil service – Officials – Assessment – Career development report – 2004 appraisal – Action for annulment – Staff representatives – Opinion of the ad hoc group)

Application: brought under Articles 236 EC and 152 EA, in which Mrs Diomede Basili seeks annulment of her career development report for the period from 1 January to 31 December 2004.

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

Summary

1. Officials – Reports procedure – Career development report – Drawing up – Officials with staff representation duties

(Staff Regulations, Annex II, Art. 1, sixth para.)

2. Officials – Reports procedure – Career development report – Drawing up

1. Although, under Article 6(3)(c) of the General Provisions for Implementing Article 43 of the Staff Regulations, adopted by the Commission, reporting officers and countersigning officers are required to consult the ad hoc group and take account of its opinion when drawing up the career development report of an official performing staff representation activities, they are not obliged to follow that opinion. If they do not, they must then explain the reasons which led them to depart from it.

Moreover, it does not follow from any provision of the Staff Regulations or the General Implementing Provisions that the obligation for the reporting officer and the countersigning officer to take account of the opinion of the ad hoc group requires them to award an official special points in addition to those intended to assess the work he has done in his post.

Nor is such a requirement implied by the last paragraph of Article 1 of Annex II to the Staff Regulations, which states that the fact of performing the duties of a staff representative is not to be prejudicial to the official concerned.

(see paras 37-38, 47)

See:

T-43/04 Fardoom and Reinard v Commission [2005] ECR‑SC I‑A‑329 and II‑1465, para. 87; T-95/04 Lavagnoli v Commission [2006] ECR-SC I-A-2-121 and II-A-2-569, para. 84

2. The rules of the General Provisions for Implementing Article 43 of the Staff Regulations, adopted by the Commission, concerning the division of powers in the performance of the duties of reporting officer, countersigning officer and appeal assessor respectively constitute internal organisational rules within an institution. A deviation from those rules cannot render void an act done by the administration unless such deviation involves the possibility of adversely affecting one of the guarantees given to officials by the Staff Regulations or the principles of good administration in staff management.

(see para. 61)

See:

46/72 De Greef v Commission [1973] ECR 543, para. 18; 49/72 Drescig v Commission [1973] ECR 565, para. 10

T-118/04 and T-134/04 Caló v Commission [2007] ECR-SC I‑A‑2-0000 and II‑A‑2‑0000, paras 67 and 68
Staff case summary



Staff case summary

Summary

1. Officials – Promotion – Conditions – Demonstration of ability to work in a third language

(Staff Regulations, Art. 45(2); Annexes III, Art. 7, and XIII, Art. 11)

2. Officials – Actions – Unlimited jurisdiction

(Art. 233 EC; Staff Regulations, Arts 45(2) and 91(1))

1. Article 45(2) of the Staff Regulations, in the version resulting from Regulation No 723/2004 amending the Staff Regulations of Officials and the Conditions of employment of other servants, which requires officials to demonstrate, before their first promotion, their ability to work in a third language, applies only from the entry into force of the joint implementing provisions adopted by the institutions by mutual agreement.

Since the legislature has, in any event, under Article 11 of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations, precluded its application to promotions that take effect prior to 1 May 2006, Article 45(2) cannot be applied prior to the entry into force of those joint implementing provisions under the terms required by the legislature, that is to say, with a guarantee that it will be uniformly applied in the different institutions, and with a connection between this new requirement under the Staff Regulations and the opportunity for officials to have training in a third language. Thus an institution cannot apply that article of the Staff Regulations according to rules which it alone has laid down.

(see paras 29-33)

2. It is true that the Civil Service Tribunal may, in certain circumstances, pursuant to Article 91(1) of the Staff Regulations, have unlimited jurisdiction to provide a complete solution to disputes of a financial nature brought before it, by ruling on the official’s rights and obligations. However, an applicant who has had a decision refusing to promote him annulled on the ground that the additional condition in order to be promoted, relating to ability to speak a third language, could not lawfully be required of him, cannot obtain damages before the court for the alleged resulting delay in his career, even if he has the requisite seniority and a greater number of points than that required to be promoted. It is possible that other considerations may prevent the applicant’s promotion retroactively, such as the fact that the number of officials eligible for promotion and having attained the promotion threshold exceeded the number of promotions possible under the budget. It is therefore the implementing measures which the administration is obliged to adopt pursuant to Article 233 EC in order to comply with the principle of res judicata that must restore the applicant’s rights, where appropriate by reinstating his career retroactively.

(see paras 46-49)

See:

C-135/06 P Weißenfels v Parliament [2007] ECR I‑12041, paras 64 to 68

T-402/03 Katalagarianakis v Commission [2007] ECR-SC I-A-0000 and II‑A‑0000, paras 105 and 106
Staff case summary



Staff case summary

Summary

1. Officials – Actions – Action against a measure of general application

(Art. 236 EC; Staff Regulations, Art. 90)

2. Officials – Equal treatment – Limits – Advantage unlawfully granted – Refusal to grant a fixed allowance to an official despite that allowance being paid to other officials in a comparable situation

1. The Civil Service Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to adjudicate on claims directly seeking a declaration that a measure of general application, such as a provision of the Staff Regulations, is illegal.

(see para. 20)

2. An institution’s decision refusing to grant a fixed allowance to an official even though other officials in a comparable situation receive it, a decision which is based on the unlawful nature of the payment of that allowance to the latter officials, infringes the principle of equal treatment where the institution cannot satisfactorily prove that the payment of the allowance to those officials has no legal basis, since measures adopted by the Community institutions are presumed to be lawful.

(see paras 28-30, 32, 36, 42)

See:

188/83 Witte v Parliament [1984] ECR 3465, paras 13 to 15

T-30/90 Zoder v Parliament [1991] ECR II‑207, para. 26; T-272/94 Brulant v Parliament [1996] ECR-SC I‑A‑513 and II‑1397, para. 35; T-22/99 Rose v Commission [2000] ECR-SC I‑A‑27 and II‑115, para. 39; T-157/99 Griesel v Council [2000] ECR-SC I‑A‑151 and II‑699, para. 25; judgment of 8 July 2003 in T-65/02 Chetaud v Parliament , not published in the ECR, para. 44; T-120/04 Peróxidos Orgánicos v Commission [2006] ECR II‑4441, para. 77; T-379/04 J v Commission [2006] ECR-SC I‑A‑2‑313 and II‑A‑2‑1575, para. 79

F-4/07 Skoulidi v Commission [2008] ECR-SC I‑A‑1‑0000 and II‑A‑1‑0000, para. 81
JUDGMENT OF THE CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL

(Second Chamber)

24 September 2009

Case F-94/07

Jean Rebizant and Others

v

Commission of the European Communities

(Civil service – Officials – Promotion – 2006 procedure – Multiplier rate – Article 6(2) of the Staff Regulations – Article 9 of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations – Promotion threshold)

Application: brought under Articles 236 EC and 152 EA, in which Mr Rebizant, Mr Vlandas and Mr Vocino seek annulment of the Commission’s decision not to promote them to grade AD 13 under the 2006 promotion procedure.

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

Summary

Actions for annulment – Pleas in law – Invalid plea in law





In an action for annulment, where a plea, in the event that it is well founded, is not such as to lead to the annulment sought by the applicant, that plea must be regarded as invalid. Therefore, where an official who is paid from the appropriations of one of the parties under the general budget brings an action against a decision of the Commission not to promote him, even though he could not have been promoted because he had not accumulated sufficient points for promotion, he must be regarded as not having a legitimate interest in obtaining annulment of a decision which could only be taken again, in an identical form, concerning him.

(see paras 61-62)

See:

C-46/98 P EFMA v Council [2000] ECR I‑7079, paras 37 and 38; C‑76/01 P Eurocoton and Others v Council [2003] ECR I‑10091, para. 52

T-432/04 Parlante v Commission [2007] ECR-SC I‑A‑2‑0000 and II‑A‑2‑0000, para. 38
JUDGMENT OF THE CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL (First Chamber)

17 February 2009

Case F-38/08

Amerigo Liotti

v

Commission of the European Communities

(Civil service – Officials – Appraisal – Career development report – 2006 appraisal procedure – Appraisal rules applied by the reporting officers)

Application: brought under Articles 236 EC and 152 EA, in which Mr Liotti seeks annulment of his career development report for the period from 1 January to 31 December 2006.

Held: The applicant’s career development report for the period from 1 January to 31 December 2006 is annulled. The Commission is ordered to pay the costs.

Summary

Officials – Reports procedure – Career development report – General implementing provisions establishing common appraisal rules for each directorate-general

(Staff Regulations, Art. 43)

The infringement, in drawing up an official’s career development report, of the general implementing provisions for Article 43 of the Staff Regulations adopted by the institution concerned, according to which common appraisal rules for each directorate-general must be taken into account in order to make it easier to compare the merits of officials, to harmonise the merit marks suggested by the reporting officers and to ensure consistent appraisal within a directorate-general, constitutes an infringement of a substantive procedural requirement. Failure to apply those rules or to take them sufficiently into account thus renders the official’s appraisal substantively flawed and justifies its annulment.

(see paras 46-47)
JUDGMENT OF THE CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL (Third Chamber)

4 May 2010

Case F-100/08

Alessandro Petrilli

v

European Commission

(Civil service — Officials — Pensions — Concept of residence — Principal residence — Documents in support)

Application: brought under Articles 236 EC and 152 EA, in which Mr Petrilli seeks, in particular, annulment of the appointing authority’s decision of 16 September 2008 rejecting his complaint lodged on the basis of Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union against the decision of the Office for the Administration and Payment of Individual Entitlements of 18 April 2008 refusing to fix Italy as his main place of residence and to apply the weighting for Italy to his pension.

Held: The action is dismissed. The applicant is to pay all the costs.

Summary

Officials — Pensions — Weighting

(Staff Regulations, Art. 82)

The concept of residence within the meaning of Article 82 of the version of the Staff Regulations in force until 30 April 2004, which provides for the application to pensions of the weighting fixed for the country in which the recipient proves he has established his residence, refers to the place where the former official has actually established his centre of interests, in other words the place in which the person concerned has established, with the intention that it should be of a lasting character, the permanent or habitual centre of his interests and where he is deemed to incur his expenditure. Furthermore, irrespective of the purely quantitative element of the time spent by the person in a particular country, residence implies not only the actual fact of living in a given place, but also the intention of thereby achieving the continuity which stems from a stable way of life and from the course of normal social relations. This concept of residence is peculiar to the Community civil service and does not necessarily coincide with national meanings of the term.

(see para. 32)

See:

T-124/01 and T-320/01 Del Vaglio v Commission [2003] ECR-SC I-A-157 and II-767, para. 70 and the case-law cited therein, and paras 71 and 72; judgment of 12 September 2005 in T-320/04 Dionyssopoulou v Council, not published in the ECR, para. 39; T-416/04 Kontouli v Council [2006] ECR-SC I-A-2-181 and II-A-2-897, para. 71

F-134/06 Bordini v Commission [2008] ECR-SC I-A-1-87 and II-A-1-435
JUDGMENT OF THE CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL

(Second Chamber)

28 October 2010

Case F-31/09

Isabelle Noël

v

Council of the European Union

(Civil service — Officials — Classification in grade — Local staff appointed as officials — Article 10 of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations — Article 3 of the Annex to the CEOS)

Application: brought under Articles 236 EC and 152 EA, in which Ms Noël seeks annulment of the appointing authority’s decision of 13 November 2006 appointing her as a probationary official in grade AST 1, step 1, in so far as that decision employs her in the AST 1 to 7 career stream.

Held: The action is dismissed. The applicant is to bear her own costs and to pay the Council’s costs.

Summary

Officials — Recruitment — Classification in grade — Member of the local staff appointed as an official following an internal competition

(Staff Regulations, Art. 31; Annex XIII, Art. 10; Conditions of Employment of Other Servants, Arts 1(1) and 3)

The principle of equal treatment is not infringed provided that differences in treatment between different categories of officials are justified on the basis of an objective and reasonable criterion, and that those differences are proportionate to the aim pursued by the differentiation in question, that principle being applicable, by analogy, where different situations are treated in the same way.

The aim pursued by the reform of the Staff Regulations was, inter alia, to combine the former categories B, C and D into a single AST function group. In order to take account of differences in the level of recruitment for those categories, it was envisaged that the career stream of officials in former categories C and D would be limited to certain grades, AST 1 to 7 and AST 1 to 5 respectively, although the officials in question would have the possibility of taking part in an attestation procedure in order to be promoted beyond those grades. In the light of those concerns, the fact that the administration places local staff appointed as officials as a result of an internal competition, pursuant to Article 3 of the Annex to the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants, on the same footing as former category C or category D officials, according to the duties they performed, in order to determine in which career stream to employ them, is justified on the basis of an objective and reasonable criterion, that is to say, to prevent local staff performing the same duties as former category C or D officials from receiving better treatment than the latter. Furthermore, treating local staff who have become officials in exactly the same way as former category C or D officials satisfies the requirement of proportionality, since it is for the administration to determine, for the purposes of applying Article 10 of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations, to which category of the former nomenclature each member of the local staff should be treated as equivalent, according to the duties he performs.

(see para. 21)

See:

F-54/06 Davisand Others v Council [2007] ECR-SC I-A-1-165 and II-A-1-911, para. 64 and the case-law cited therein