ORDER OF THE GENERAL COURT (Appeal Chamber)

12 December 2014

CR

v

European Parliament

and

Council of the European Union

‛Appeal — Civil service — Officials — Remuneration — Family allowances — Dependent child allowance — Recovery of undue payments — Plea of illegality raised in relation to paragraph 2 of Article 85 of the Staff Regulations — Legal certainty — Proportionality — Obligation to state reasons — Appeal manifestly unfounded’

Appeal:

against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (Third Chamber) of 12 March 2014 in CR v Parliament (F‑128/12, ECR-SC, EU:F:2014:38), seeking to have that judgment set aside.

Held:

The appeal is dismissed. Mr CR is to bear his own costs and is ordered to pay those incurred by the European Parliament in the present proceedings. The Council of the European Union is to bear its own costs.

Summary

Judicial proceedings — Res judicata — Scope Officials — Recovery of undue payments — Limitation period — Member of staff having deliberately misled the administration — Limitation period not enforceable against the administration — Infringement of the principle of legal certainty by the Union legislature — None (Staff Regulations, Art. 85, second para.) Appeals — Pleas in law — Inadequate statement of reasons — Reliance by the General Court on implied reasoning — Lawfulness — Obligation to rule on each alleged infringement of law — None — Obligation to reply to the appellant’s clear and precise arguments (Art. 256(1) TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 36, 53, first para., and 58, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 81) Officials — Recovery of undue payments — Limitation period — Member of staff having deliberately misled the administration — Limitation period not enforceable against the administration — Breach of principle of proportionality — None (Staff Regulations, Art. 85, second para.; Council Regulation No 1995/2006, Art. 73a)

See the text of the decision. (see para. 16) See: Judgment of 18 June 2009 in Commission v Traore, T‑572/08 P, ECR-SC, EU:T:2009:209, para. 55 and the case-law cited therein In order to fulfil its function of ensuring legal certainty, a limitation period must be determined in advance, and it is the EU legislature which is responsible for determining its duration and the rules for its application. The legislature has a discretion when it comes to prescribing time-limits. Where the administration is able to establish that the person concerned deliberately misled it, the non-enforceability of the five-year limitation period against the administration’s action to recover undue payments is not contrary to the principle of legal certainty provided that the administration acts within a reasonable period. It may therefore not be inferred that, in the absence of a mandatory time-limit laid down by a rule of Union law, there is a breach of the principle of legal certainty. On the contrary, the administration’s obligation to act within a reasonable period, compliance with which is subject to review by the Union courts, offers adequate protection in situations where the legislation does not lay down any limitation period. (see paras 23, 24) See: Judgment of 2 October 2003 in International Power and Others v NALOO, C‑172/01 P, C‑175/01 P, C‑176/01 P and C‑180/01 P, ECR, EU:C:2003:534, para. 106 and the case-law cited therein Judgment of 6 October 2005 in Sumitomo Chemical and Sumika Fine Chemicals v Commission, T‑22/02 and T‑23/02, ECR, EU:T:2005:349, paras 82 and 83 See the text of the decision. (see para. 33) See: Judgment of 15 October 2014, Court of Auditors v BF, T‑663/13 P, ECR-SC, EU:T:2014:883, para. 70 and the case-law cited therein The objective pursued by the second sentence of the second paragraph of Article 85 of the Staff Regulations is to protect the financial interests of the European Union in the specific context of relations between the institutions of the Union and their staff, that is to say, persons who are bound to those institutions by the duty of loyalty provided for in Article 11 of the Staff Regulations. It may be inferred that, in the specific situation referred to by that provision, which requires the administration to recover overpayments in full where it is able to establish that the member of staff concerned deliberately misled it, in breach of his duty of loyalty, the non-enforceability of the five-year limitation period does not go further than is necessary to attain the objective pursued and is, moreover, consistent with Article 73a of Regulation No 1995/2006 amending Regulation No 1605/2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities. (see paras 35, 36)

ORDER OF THE GENERAL COURT (Appeal Chamber)

12 December 2014

CR

v

European Parliament

and

Council of the European Union

‛Appeal — Civil service — Officials — Remuneration — Family allowances — Dependent child allowance — Recovery of undue payments — Plea of illegality raised in relation to paragraph 2 of Article 85 of the Staff Regulations — Legal certainty — Proportionality — Obligation to state reasons — Appeal manifestly unfounded’

Appeal:

against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (Third Chamber) of 12 March 2014 in CR v Parliament (F‑128/12, ECR-SC, EU:F:2014:38), seeking to have that judgment set aside.

Held:

The appeal is dismissed. Mr CR is to bear his own costs and is ordered to pay those incurred by the European Parliament in the present proceedings. The Council of the European Union is to bear its own costs.

Summary

Judicial proceedings — Res judicata — Scope Officials — Recovery of undue payments — Limitation period — Member of staff having deliberately misled the administration — Limitation period not enforceable against the administration — Infringement of the principle of legal certainty by the Union legislature — None (Staff Regulations, Art. 85, second para.) Appeals — Pleas in law — Inadequate statement of reasons — Reliance by the General Court on implied reasoning — Lawfulness — Obligation to rule on each alleged infringement of law — None — Obligation to reply to the appellant’s clear and precise arguments (Art. 256(1) TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 36, 53, first para., and 58, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 81) Officials — Recovery of undue payments — Limitation period — Member of staff having deliberately misled the administration — Limitation period not enforceable against the administration — Breach of principle of proportionality — None (Staff Regulations, Art. 85, second para.; Council Regulation No 1995/2006, Art. 73a)