ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Third Chamber)

11 December 2001

Case T-20/01

Maria Concetta Cerafogli and Others

v

European Central Bank

‛Amendment of the Conditions of Employment for Staff of the European Central Bank — Action for annulment — Inadmissibility’

Full text in German II-1075

Application for:

annulment and/or a declaration of inapplicability of Articles 7.2.0 and 8.1.0 of the Staff Rules, Administrative Circular No 01/2000 concerning Travel Expenses, the automatic adjustment clause inserted into the applicants' employment contracts and the decision of the President of the European Central Bank of 27 November 2000 rejecting the applicants' complaint, and for a declaration that the European Central Bank was required to consult the Staff Committee before adopting Administrative Circular No 01/2000 and that the defendant is not empowered unilaterally to introduce into the contracts between the applicants and itself amendments to the Conditions of Employment or the Staff Rules, nor to enforce such amendments.

Held:

The application is dismissed as inadmissible. The parties are to bear their own costs.

Summary

(Protocol on the Statute of the European System of Central Banks and of the European Central Bank, Art. 36.1; Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the EC, Art. 2; Conditions of Employment for Staff of the European Central Bank, Art. 42)

(Art. 236 EC; Protocol on the Statute of the European System of Central Banks and of the European Central Bank, Art. 36.2; EC Staff Regulations, Art. 90; Conditions of Employment for Staff of the European Central Bank, Arts 41 and 42; Staff Rules of the European Central Bank, Art. 8)

Under Article 36.2 of the Protocol on the Statute of the European System of Central Banks and of the European Central Bank, the Community Courts are to have jurisdiction in any dispute between the European Central Bank and its servants within the limits and under the conditions laid down in the rules applicable to the staff of the European Central Bank. Those limits and conditions are laid down in Articles 41 and 42 of the Conditions of Employment and in Article 8 of the Staff Rules. It is apparent, in particular, from Article 42 of the Conditions of Employment that the Community Courts have jurisdiction in disputes between the European Central Bank and its staff only to the extent that the internal grievance procedures have been exhausted. Article 41 of those conditions makes clear that those internal grievance procedures can apply only to measures taken in individual cases. It follows from those provisions that, on the model of the jurisdiction of the Community Courts in staff cases brought under Article 236 EC and Article 90 of the EC Staff Regulations, the Community Courts have jurisdiction in actions brought under Article 36.2 of the Protocol on the Statute of the European System of Central Banks and of the European Central Bank only to the extent that such actions relate to individual measures. However, it does not have jurisdiction in actions relating to measures of general application. (see paras 33-35) See: T-192/99 Dunnett and Others v EIB [2001] ECR II-813, para. 62, and the judgments cited therein; C-467/00 P Staff Committee of the ECB and Others v ECB [2001] ECR I-6041, para. 15

In the absence of any indication in the Treaty or in the Staff Rules of the European Central Bank as to the time-limit for bringing actions in disputes between the European Central Bank and its staff, it is for the Court of First Instance to fill the gap in the system of remedies. The need to weigh the individual's entitlement to effective protection by the courts against the need for legal certainty requires that disputes between the European Central Bank and its staff should be brought before the Community judicature within a reasonable period. In order to determine whether the applicants brought their action within a reasonable period, account must be taken of the conditions on time-limits for bringing actions laid down by Articles 90 and 91 of the EC Staff Regulations. It must be held that, although the staff of the European Central Bank are subject to specific rules drawn up by the Bank, disputes between the European Central Bank and its staff are by their nature comparable to disputes between the Community institutions and their officials or other servants, which are covered by Articles 90 and 91 of the EC Staff Regulations. (see paras 61-63) See: T-33/99 Méndez Pinedo v ECB [2000] ECRSC I-A-63 and II-273, para. 32; Dunnett and Others v EIB, cited above, para. 51