JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (First Chamber)

14 July 1998

Case T-192/96

Giorgio Lebedef

v

Commission of the European Communities

‛Staff Committee — Procedure — Amendment of the Staff Committee Rules — General meeting — Electoral system — Admissibility’

Full text in French II-1047

Application for:

annulment, in whole or in part, of the general meeting of staff of the Commission assigned to Luxembourg of 5 December 1995 and of the decision to amend the Staff Committee rules adopted by that meeting as well as all other acts subsequently adopted pursuant to that decision.

Decision:

Application dismissed.

Abstract of the Judgment

On 5 December 1995 an Extraordinary General Meeting of the Local Staff Committee in Luxembourg (CLP) was held to discuss proposals to revise its Rules. The agenda ofthat meeting was communicated to the staff on 23 November 1995.

According to the procedure adopted by the CLP, discussion of the amendment of its Rules was limited to the only two proposals received by the CLP after 20 September 1994, the date of the previous general meeting. Those addressing the meeting in support of the proposals were allowed only two minutes in which to do so. Then each proposal was put to a general vote and a proposal receiving a majority of votes and at least two thirds of the votes cast was accepted. Then the successful proposal was discussed article by article.

The general meeting approved one of the proposals and, accordingly, adopted a decision amending the Rules of the Local Staff Committee.

The, proposal which was adopted was submitted by one of the staff unions, the Union Syndicale. The other proposal was submitted by, among others, the union Action & Défense — Luxembourg (A & D — L), of which the applicant is a senior official.

The second and third paragraphs of Article 8 of the new Rules of the CLP read as follows:

‘If it is not to be declared void, each vote shall be cast as follows: the voter shall vote for a maximum of 20 candidates chosen from one or more lists or individual candidatures. For that purpose, he shall place a cross in the box corresponding to the name of the candidate chosen, up to a maximum of 20.

A voter may, in particular, make use of a “list vote” by voting for a minimum of 8 and a maximum of 20 candidates from the same list.’

The third, fourth and fifth paragraphs of Article 10 of the new Rules are worded as follows:

‘The first twelve candidates shall be elected, subject to verification of the representativity clause ...

The eight remaining seats shall be assigned on the basis of proportional allocation (the d'Hondt method) to the lists of candidates which received the “list vote” (see Article 8) of at least 5% of those voting.

In each of these lists the seats obtained on the basis of the “list vote” shall be allocated to the unsuccessful candidates who obtained the greatest number of votes, until the number of seats allocated to that list is exhausted ...’

The elections to the CLP, to which the new rules were applied, took place on 21 November 1996. The applicant, who stood on the lists of the union A & D — L, was the only candidate from his list to be elected.

Admissibility

Every person entitled to vote has an interest in ensuring that the representatives of his organisation are elected in conditions and according to voting arrangements which comply with the provisions of the Staff Regulations governing voting procedure in this context. In a dispute relating to those organs an official, merely by virtue of being entitled to vote, has an interest which renders his application admissible.

In that regard, the Court observes that both in his capacity as a person entitled to vote and in that as an elected candidate the applicant is in a position to put forward a personal and specific complaint against the voting arrangements where he maintains that if that system were not vitiated by the alleged defects the list of candidates on which he appeared would have been able to obtain more mandates. It should also be pointed out that the fact that the applicant was elected does not call in question the interest which he has as a person entitled to vote in being able to exercise his right to vote according to regulations which comply with the provisions of the Staff Regulations (paragraphs 27 to 29).

See: 146/85 and 431/85 Diezler and Others v ECS [1987] ECR 4283, para. 9; T-368/94 Blanchard v Commission [1996] ECRSC II-1, paras 35 and 37

It follows from those factors that the applicant is entitled to challenge the decision of the general meeting of the staff of 5 December 1995 adopting a new electoral system (paragraph 30).

As regards the submissions requesting the Court to declare the Meeting incomplete, the Court has no jurisdiction to make a finding of fact relating to the conduct of a meeting, in so far as that fact is not invoked in support of a defect vitiating the decisions adopted by that meeting. Those submissions are therefore inadmissible (paragraph 32).

See: T-146/95 Bernardi v Parliament [1996] ECR II-769, para. 23

As regards the claim that the acts adopted in application of the decision amending the Rules of the Staff Committee, according to Article 44(1 )(c) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court the applicant is required to state in his application the subject-matter of the proceedings. This means that the subject-matter of the proceedings should be sufficiently precise to enable the defendant to prepare its defence and the Court to understand the purpose of the applicant's claims. A claim having as its purpose the annulment of all the acts adopted pursuant to the contested decision, where those acts are not identified, is not sufficiently precise and must be rejected as inadmissible (paragraphs 33 and 34).

See: Bernardi v Parliament, cited above, paras 25 and 26

Substance

Complaints invoked against the conduct of the meeting of 5 December 1995

The Court rejects the five complaints relating to the conduct of the meeting.

Concerning the third complaint, the Court states that since Annex II to the Staff Regulations does not lay down rules for the conduct of general meetings of officials it is for each meeting to establish such rules, in accordance with the general principles applicable in that context. In that regard, setting a limit for the submission and discussion of proposals meets a simple requirement dictated by the proper conduct of its work which does not limit participants' rights.

The complaints invoked against the voting arrangements adopted by the meeting of 5 December 1995

Neither Article 9 of the Staff Regulations nor Annex II thereto lays down the method of elections to the Staff Committee. The rules of 27 April 1988 on the composition and functioning of the Staff Committee of the Commission are limited, in that regard, to providing for the possible coexistence of a list vote and a preferential vote. It follows that meetings of officials have a broad autonomy to determine the method whereby staff committees are elected, provided that the method chosen is not susceptible of infringing the principles of democracy or equity (paragraph 70).

See: Diezler and Others v ESC, cited above, and Opinion of Advocate General Sir Gordon Slynn [1987] ECR 4298, at 4307

The Court rejects the five complaints invoked by the applicant.

First, the D'Hondt method is used in the electoral systems of a number of Member States. It is therefore not a method which lacks transparency. Furthermore, Article 8 of the rules of 27 April 1988 does not require that the rule on the allocation of seats be the same for list votes and votes for individual candidates (paragraphs 71 and 72).

Second, thresholds of representativity are applied in the electoral systems of a number of Member States. The fact that the rules adopted at the meeting of 5 December 1995 provide for a threshold of 5% therefore does not constitute an irregularity. As regards the basis on which the threshold is to be calculated, it is clear from Article 10 of the new staff rules that this is 5% of the list votes alone (paragraph 73).

Third, the differences, in terms of the allocation of seats, between list votes and votes for individual candidates are the consequence of fact that both types of vote exist side by side, as provided for in the rules of 27 April 1988. Since the purpose of such an arrangement is to facilitate the stability of elected bodies by encouraging the use of lists, it is for each voter, pursuant to the rules laid down in Articles 8 and 10 of the local staff rules, to decide how he is to apportion his quota of votes between those two types of vote (paragraph 74).

Fourth, the second paragraph of Article 1 of Annex II to the Staff Regulations provides that the conditions for election to each local section of the Staff Committee are to be laid down by the general meeting of officials of the institution in service at the relevant place of employment. The fact that local meetings choose different voting arrangements is therefore the consequence of the application of that provision of Annex II to the Staff Regulations and does not infringe the principle of unicity of representation of the staff (paragraph 76).

Last, as provided for in Article 1 of Annex II to the Staff Regulations, every official of the institution is entitled to vote and stand for election. That provision serves to illustrate the principle of equality, a superior principle of law which is binding on the Court. The fact that an International Labour Organisation Convention precludes the application of that principle in the context of the representative bodies of the public service does not call its application into question, since the Community has not acceded to that Convention (paragraph 77).

Operative part:

The application is dismissed.