JUDGMENT OF THE EUROPEAN UNION CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL (Third Chamber)

25 June 2014

Debbie Ruff

v

European Police Office (Europol)

‛Civil service — Europol staff — Europol Convention — Europol Staff Regulations — Decision 2009/371/JHA — Application of the CEOS to Europol staff — Non-renewal of a fixed-term contract as a member of the temporary staff — Refusal to grant a temporary staff contract for an indefinite period’

Application:

under Article 270 TFEU, in which Ms Ruff seeks annulment of the decision of 29 February 2012 by which the European Police Office (Europol) refused to renew for an indefinite period her fixed-term contract as a member of the temporary staff which expired on 31 May 2012.

Held:

The action is dismissed. Ms Ruff is to bear her own costs and is ordered to pay those incurred by the European Police Office.

Summary

Actions brought by officials — Prior administrative complaint — Consistency between the complaint and the action — Same subject-matter and legal basis — Submissions and arguments not made in the complaint but closely related to it — Admissibility (Staff Regulations, Arts 90 and 91) Officials — Principles — Protection of legitimate expectations — Conditions — Precise assurances given by the administration

In actions brought by officials, claims for relief before the Union judicature may contain only heads of claim based on the same matters as those raised in the complaint, although those heads of claim may be developed before the Union judicature by the presentation of pleas in law and arguments which, whilst not necessarily appearing in the complaint, are closely linked to it. In that regard, first, since the pre-litigation procedure is informal in character and those concerned are generally acting without the assistance of a lawyer at that stage, the administration must not interpret the complaints restrictively but, on the contrary, must consider them with an open mind, and second, it is not the purpose of Article 91 of the Staff Regulations to bind strictly and absolutely the contentious stage of the proceedings, if any, provided that the action changes neither the legal basis nor the subject-matter of the complaint. However, the fact remains that, if the pre-litigation procedure provided for in Article 91(2) of the Staff Regulations is to achieve its purpose, the administration must be in a position to know with sufficient precision the criticisms formulated by the persons concerned against the contested decision. (see paras 35, 36) See: judgment in Commission v Moschonaki, T-476/11 P, EU:T:2013:557, paras 73, 76 and 77 and the case-law cited therein The right to rely on the protection of legitimate expectations extends to any individual who is in a situation in which it is apparent that the administration has led him to entertain justified expectations by giving him precise assurances in the form of precise, unconditional and consistent information coming from authorised and reliable sources. (see para. 42) See: judgment in Mendes v Commission, F-125/11, EU:F:2013:35, para. 62

JUDGMENT OF THE EUROPEAN UNION CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL (Third Chamber)

25 June 2014

Debbie Ruff

v

European Police Office (Europol)

‛Civil service — Europol staff — Europol Convention — Europol Staff Regulations — Decision 2009/371/JHA — Application of the CEOS to Europol staff — Non-renewal of a fixed-term contract as a member of the temporary staff — Refusal to grant a temporary staff contract for an indefinite period’

Application

:

under Article 270 TFEU, in which Ms Ruff seeks annulment of the decision of 29 February 2012 by which the European Police Office (Europol) refused to renew for an indefinite period her fixed-term contract as a member of the temporary staff which expired on 31 May 2012.

Held

:

The action is dismissed. Ms Ruff is to bear her own costs and is ordered to pay those incurred by the European Police Office.

Summary

Actions brought by officials — Prior administrative complaint — Consistency between the complaint and the action — Same subject-matter and legal basis — Submissions and arguments not made in the complaint but closely related to it — Admissibility (Staff Regulations, Arts 90 and 91) Officials — Principles — Protection of legitimate expectations — Conditions — Precise assurances given by the administration