ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
ORDER OF THE CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL

(First Chamber)

30 June 2011

Case F-88/10

Marc Van Asbroeck

v

European Commission

(Civil service — Officials — Decision on classification in intermediate grade — Request for re-examination — Substantial new fact — None — Action manifestly inadmissible)

Application: brought under Article 270 TFEU, applicable to the EAEC Treaty pursuant to Article 106a thereof, in which Mr Van Asbroeck seeks, principally, first, annulment of the Commission’s decision refusing to reclassify him, with retroactive effect from 1 May 2004, in intermediate grade D*4, step 8, and to reconstruct his career, and second, an order for the Commission to pay compensation for the financial harm allegedly suffered.

Held: The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible. The applicant is to bear all the costs.

Summary

Officials — Actions — Prior administrative complaint — Time-limits — Claim barred by lapse of time — Reopening — Condition — New and material fact

(Staff Regulations, Arts 90 and 91)

A decision which has not been challenged by its addressee within the time-limit laid down becomes definitive as against that person. However, the existence of substantial new facts may justify the submission of a request for reconsideration of a previous decision which has become definitive. An action brought against a decision refusing to reconsider a decision which has become definitive will be declared admissible if it appears that the request was indeed based on substantial new facts. On the other hand, if it appears that the request was not based on such facts, an action against the decision refusing to reconsider it will be declared inadmissible.

An official who has not challenged, within the time-limits laid down in the Staff Regulations, a decision classifying him in an intermediate grade cannot reasonably request reconsideration solely on the ground that the communication of his pay slip was the first time that he was able to see the impact on his remuneration of the unlawfulness of the Commission’s decision regarding the introduction of a compensatory allowance in favour of officials who changed category before 1 May 2004. However, even if that decision was unlawful, that circumstance could not be regarded as a substantial new fact such as to justify reconsideration of the decision to classify him in an intermediate grade, since the decision in question merely laid down the rules for calculating the trans-category allowance. The adoption by an institution other than that employing the official of a decision reclassifying certain officials also cannot constitute a substantial new fact, since that decision does not directly concern the official in question.

(see paras 43-47)

See:

26 September 1985, 231/84 Valentini v Commission, para. 14

7 February 2001, T-186/98 Inpesca v Commission, paras 47 and 49 and the case-law cited therein; 16 September 2009, T-271/08 P Boudova and Others v Commission, para. 48
Staff case summary

Staff case summary Summary Actions brought by officials — Amicable settlement of the dispute before the Civil Service Tribunal — Removal from the register (Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal, Art. 69)

ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE THIRD CHAMBER OF THE EUROPEAN UNION CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL

2 July 2013

Bogdi and Others

v

European Economic and Social Committee (EESC)

‛Amicable settlement of the proceedings — Article 69(1) of the Rules of Procedure — Agreement of the parties at the initiative of the Tribunal — Removal from the register’

Application:

brought under Article 270 TFEU, applicable to the EAEC Treaty pursuant to Article 106a thereof, whereby the applicants seek, in essence, annulment of the decisions of the Economic and Social Committee to promote them from grade AST 5 to grade AST 6 in so far as those promotions have the effect of retroactively reducing the multiplication factor applicable to their salaries from 1 April 2011.

Held:

Case F‑53/12 Bogdi and Others v EESC is removed from the register of the Tribunal. The parties are to bear their own costs, in accordance with the agreement reached between them.

Summary

Actions brought by officials — Amicable settlement of the dispute before the Civil Service Tribunal — Removal from the register

(Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal, Art. 69)
ORDER OF THE EUROPEAN UNION CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL

(First Chamber)

30 September 2015

Peter Schönberger

v

European Court of Auditors

‛Civil service — Officials — Referral back to the Tribunal after setting aside — Promotion — 2011 promotion procedure — Refusal of promotion — Action in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded’

Application:

under Article 270 TFEU, applicable to the EAEC Treaty pursuant to Article 106a thereof, in which Mr Schönberger sought, essentially, annulment of the decision of the European Court of Auditors not to promote him to grade AD 13 in the 2011 promotion year.

Held:

The action is dismissed as in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded. In Cases F‑14/12 and F‑14/12 RENV, Mr Schönberger is to bear his own costs and is ordered to pay the costs incurred by the European Court of Auditors. In Case T‑26/14 P, the European Court of Auditors is to bear its own costs and is ordered to pay the costs incurred by Mr Schönberger.

Summary

Actions brought by officials — Action directed against a decision to refuse promotion — Plea in law alleging that the promotion procedure was unlawful — Burden of proof (Staff Regulations, Arts 6(2) and 91, Annex I, section B) Officials — Equal treatment — Concept — Limits
ORDER OF THE EUROPEAN UNION CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL

(Third Chamber)

15 June 2016

Daniel Wille

and

Bo Skovsboell

v

European Commission

‛Civil service — Officials — Pensions — Transfer of national pension rights — Proposals concerning additional pensionable years — Act not having an adverse effect — Inadmissibility of the action — Application for a decision not going to the substance of the case — Article 83 of the Rules of Procedure’

Application:

under Article 270 TFEU, applicable to the EAEC Treaty pursuant to Article 106a thereof, in which Mr Daniel Wille and Mr Bo Skovsboell sought annulment of the ‘decisions’ of 21 November 2011 and 5 March 2012, respectively, calculating the amount of their pension rights acquired earlier under another scheme to be credited under the European Union pension scheme and, to the extent necessary, of the decisions of the appointing authority of the European Commission of 19 April and 29 June 2012, respectively, rejecting their complaints against the ‘decisions’ fixing that amount.

Held:

The action is dismissed. Mr Daniel Wille and Mr Bo Skovsboell are to bear their own costs and are ordered to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.

Summary

Actions brought by officials — Act adversely affecting an official — Concept — Proposal concerning additional pensionable years with a view to a transfer to the EU pension scheme of pension rights acquired before entry into the service of the EU — Not included

(Staff Regulations, Art. 91(1) and Annex VIII, Art. 11(2))

A proposal concerning additional pensionable years, notified to an official with a view to a transfer to the EU pension scheme of pension rights acquired under another scheme, does not produce binding legal effects which directly and immediately affect the legal situation of the person to whom it is addressed, by significantly altering that situation. Therefore, it does not constitute an act having adverse effect for the purposes of Article 91(1) of the Staff Regulations.

(see para. 18)

See:

Judgments of 13 October 2015 in Commission v Verile and Gjergji, T‑104/14 P, EU:T:2015:776, para. 62, and Teughels v Commission, T‑131/14 P, EU:T:2015:778, para. 58
11

It must be recalled that, pursuant to Article 35(1)(e) of the Rules of Procedure, an application must contain the pleas in law and the factual and legal arguments on which it is based. According to settled case-law, those pleas in law and arguments must be sufficiently clear and precise to enable the defendant to prepare his defence and the Tribunal to rule on the action, if necessary without any other supporting information. In order to ensure legal certainty and the proper administration of justice, it is necessary, if an action is to be admissible, that the essential points of law and fact relied on be indicated coherently and intelligibly in the application itself (order of 28 April 1993 in Case T‑85/92 De Hoe v Commission, paragraph 20; judgments of 15 September 2011 in Case F‑102/09 Bennett and Others v OHIM, paragraph 115; of 1 February 2012 in Case F‑123/10 Bancale and Buccheri v Commission, paragraph 38; and of 8 March 2012 in Case F‑12/10 Kerstens v Commission, paragraph 68). That is a fortiori the case since, under Article 7(3) of Annex I to the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, the written stage of the proceedings before the Tribunal comprises, in principle, only one exchange of written pleadings, unless the Tribunal decides otherwise. That particular feature of the procedure before the Tribunal explains why, in contrast to the provisions in respect of cases before the Court of Justice of the European Union or the General Court, in accordance with the first paragraph of Article 21 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, the pleas in law and the arguments in the application may not be in summary form (judgment of 4 June 2009 in Joined Cases F‑134/07 and F‑8/08 Adjemian and Others v Commission, paragraph 76).
According to the requirements of Article 45 of the Staff Regulations, where an official is eligible for promotion in the course of the year during which he is transferred from one institution to another, the appointing authority competent to decide on his promotion is that of the institution of origin. In order to decide whether an official should be promoted with retroactive effect to 1 January of the year N (or even, more generally, during year N), that authority must, in practice, compare the past merits of officials, in particular during the year N–1 and in the light of the appraisal reports on the performance of those officials during the years N–1 and earlier. To that end, it is necessary to compare the merits of the officials transferred with those of the officials who were still their colleagues during the year prior to their transfer, and that assessment can only legitimately be conducted by the institution of origin.

It is a different matter, however, if the official’s transfer took place during the year preceding the year in which he was eligible for promotion with effect from 1 January. In that situation, the official’s merits for the year N–1 cannot be compared solely with those of his former colleagues at his institution of origin, since the merits of his colleagues at his new institution must also be taken into consideration. In such circumstances, it is for the appointing authority of the receiving institution to decide on his promotion. A comparison of the merits and reports of an official who has recently been the subject of an interinstitutional transfer is less straightforward than a comparison between officials within the receiving institution alone, but it is not, per se, either impossible or discriminatory. Such a comparison requires additional effort in order to be able to make comparable assessments which were not necessarily comparable initially, but such a procedure cannot be likened to a breach of the principle of equal treatment.

(see paras 22-25)

See:

11 June 1998, T‑167/97 Skrikas v Parliament, para. 45

28 June 2011, F‑128/10 Mora Carrasco and Others v Parliament, paras 35 and 39; 5 July 2011, F‑38/11 Alari v Parliament, para. 31
ORDER OF THE EUROPEAN UNION CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL

(Third Chamber)

30 April 2014

Case F‑88/13

Desislava Kolarova

v

Research Executive Agency (REA)

(Civil service — Staff of the Research Executive Agency — Preliminary issues — Objection of inadmissibility — Powers conferred on the authority authorised to conclude contracts of employment — Delegation to the Office for the Administration and Payment of Individual Entitlements (PMO) — Action against the decisions of the PMO — Action against the delegating institution — Manifest inadmissibility)

Application: under Article 270 TFEU by Ms Kolarova, seeking annulment of the decision of the Head of the ‘Salaries and Administration of Individual Rights’ Unit of the Office for the Administration and Payment of Individual Entitlements (‘PMO 1’) rejecting her application for an allowance for her mother as a person treated as a dependent child under Article 2(4) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union (‘the Staff Regulations’), together with compensation for the non-material harm resulting from certain allegations made against her by PMO 1 in dealing with her application.

Held: The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible. Ms Kolarova is to bear her own costs and is ordered to pay those incurred by the Research Executive Agency.

Summary

Actions brought by officials — Status of defendant — Research Executive Agency — Delegation of powers conferred on the authority authorised to conclude contracts of employment — Action against the delegating authority — Inadmissibility

(Staff Regulations, Art. 91a)

With regard to entitlements for the allocation of which the Research Executive Agency has delegated the exercise of the powers conferred on the authority authorised to conclude contracts of employment to the Office for the Administration and Payment of Individual Entitlements (PMO), the regulations applicable and, in particular, Article 91a of the Staff Regulations designate the Commission as the defendant in any action against a decision of that Office.

An action in which a staff member of the Research Executive Agency challenges a decision of the PMO is inadmissible where it is directed against the Agency.

(see paras 17, 18)

See:

12 December 2013, F‑22/12 Hall v Commission and CEPOL, para. 25
The application of new general implementing provisions for Articles 11 and 12 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations, in respect of a transfer to the EU pension scheme of pension rights acquired under another pension scheme, requested prior to the adoption of those provisions but carried out after they had entered into force, is not contrary to Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations.

In this regard, according to a generally accepted principle and save as otherwise provided, a new rule applies immediately to situations yet to arise and to the future effects of situations which arose, but were not fully constituted, under the old rule. That is so except for situations originating and becoming definitive under the previous rule, which create acquired rights. A right is considered to be acquired when the event giving rise to it occurred before the legislative amendment. However, that is not the case when the event creating the right did not take place under the legislation that has been amended.

In the first place, Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations does not prevent such immediate application of new general implementing provisions.

Secondly, neither the notification, to an official or other member of staff who has submitted an application for a transfer to the EU pension scheme of pension rights acquired under another pension scheme, of a proposal concerning additional pensionable years, nor, far less, the mere submission of such an application, alters the legal situation of the person concerned or produces binding legal effects. Accordingly, there were no acquired rights held by an official or other member of staff which were capable of being infringed by the application of the new provisions.

Moreover, the right of an official or other member of staff to be credited with pensionable years is not fully constituted until the capital sum representing his rights acquired under another scheme has been transferred to the EU pension scheme.

(see paras 46-49, 51)

See:

Judgment of 13 October 2015 in Commission v Verile and Gjergji, T-104/14 P, EU:T:2015:776, paras 151 to 154 and the case-law cited
ORDER OF THE EUROPEAN UNION CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL

(Second Chamber)

20 July 2016

Claudio Belis

v

European Commission

‛Civil service — Officials — Pensions — Transfer of national pension rights — Proposal concerning additional pensionable years — Act not having an adverse effect — Application inadmissible — Application for a decision not going to the substance of the case — Article 83 of the Rules of Procedure’

Application:

under Article 270 TFEU, applicable to the EAEC Treaty pursuant to Article 106a thereof, by which Mr Claudio Belis seeks, principally, the annulment of the European Commission’s proposal of 16 January 2014 determining, at his request, the number of additional pensionable years to be credited under the EU pension scheme as a result of the transfer of pension rights which he had acquired under a national pension scheme before entering the service of the Commission.

Held:

The action is dismissed as inadmissible. Mr Claudio Belis shall bear his own costs and is ordered to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.

Summary

Actions brought by officials — Acts adversely affecting an official — Meaning — Proposal concerning additional pensionable years with a view to a transfer to the EU pension scheme of pension rights acquired before entry into the service of the EU — Not included

(Staff Regulations, Art. 91(1))

A proposal concerning additional pensionable years sent to an official at his request does not produce binding legal effects which directly and immediately affect the legal situation of the person to whom it is addressed, by significantly altering that situation, and cannot therefore be characterised as an act having adverse effect within the meaning of Article 91(1) of the Staff Regulations.

(see para. 16)

See:

Judgments of 13 October 2015 in Commission v Verile and Gjergji, T-104/14 P, EU:T:2015:776, para. 73; in Commission v Cocchi and Falcione, T-103/13 P, EU:T:2015:777, para. 65; and Teughels v Commission, T-131/14 P, EU:T:2015:778, para. 69
The second indent of Article 91(3) of the Staff Regulations, which provides that ‘where a complaint is rejected by express decision after being rejected by implied decision but before the period for lodging an appeal has expired, the period for lodging the appeal shall start to run afresh’, cannot apply at the stage of the request and before the complaint is lodged. That specific provision, which relates to the rules for calculating periods for filing appeals, must be interpreted literally and strictly. It follows that the express rejection of a request after an implied decision rejecting that same request cannot enable the official concerned to continue the pre-litigation procedure by opening for him a new period for lodging a complaint, as that decision is in the nature of a purely confirmatory measure.

Thus, a complaint lodged more than three months after the implied decision rejecting the request cannot constitute a due prior complaint to the appointing authority enabling the pre-litigation procedure prior to those proceedings to be continued.

Furthermore, if the Tribunal were bound to accept that mere communication, by that decision rejecting the request, of the reasons for such rejection could reopen the time limits to which such proceedings are subject any implied decision by the administration, containing no statement of reasons by its very nature, would be liable at any moment to become the subject of a request for an additional statement of reasons enabling officials or staff members to set themselves a new time limit for lodging a complaint within three months from the receipt of that additional statement of reasons, even though the fact that a decision as referred to in Article 90(1) of the Staff Regulations contains an inadequate statement of reasons may — indeed must — be raised specifically in a complaint and thus be duly rectified, where necessary, by the administration in the decision ruling on that complaint.

(see paras 24, 25, 28)

Order of 17 November 2000 in Martinelli v Commission, T‑200/99, EU:T:2000:269, para. 11

Judgments of 7 July 2011 in Longinidis v Cedefop, T‑283/08 P, EU:T:2011:338, para 72, and of 21 May 2014 in Mocová v Commission,T‑347/12 P, EU:T:2014:268, para. 35

Orders of 8 July 2009 in Sevenier v Commission, F‑62/08, EU:F:2009:88, para. 33, and of 22 April 2015 in ED v ENISA, F‑105/14, EU:F:2015:33, para. 41
ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE FIRST CHAMBER OF THE EUROPEAN UNION CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL

9 July 2015

Antonio Vecchio

v

ECSEL Joint Undertaking

‛Amicable settlement of the proceedings — Article 90(1) of the Rules of Procedure — Agreement of the parties at the initiative of the Tribunal — Removal from the register’

Application:

under Article 270 TFEU, in which Mr Vecchio sought compensation for the non-pecuniary harm which he allegedly suffered as a result of illegalities committed by the ECSEL Joint Undertaking, succeeding the Artemis Joint Undertaking, in the appraisal procedure for 2012.

Held:

Case F‑29/15 is removed from the register of the Tribunal as a result of the agreement concluded between Mr Vecchio and the ECSEL Joint Undertaking. The ECSEL Joint Undertaking is to bear its own costs and is ordered to pay the costs incurred by Mr Vecchio in accordance with the terms of their agreement.

Summary

Actions brought by officials — Amicable settlement of the dispute before the Civil Service Tribunal — Removal from the register

(Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal, Art. 90(1))

(see paras 2, 4)