ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
The function of the vacancy notice is, first, to give those interested the most accurate information possible as to the nature of the conditions of eligibility for the post to be filled, in order to enable them to decide whether they should apply for it and, second, to establish the legal framework within which the institution intends to undertake a comparison of the candidates’ merits. As a vacancy notice lays down conditions relating to access to employment in the relevant post, the appointing authority, in relation to officials, must adhere to it. Furthermore, just as a vacancy notice is intended to establish the legal framework within which the appointing authority will undertake the consideration of the candidates’ comparative merits provided for in Article 45(1) of the Staff Regulations, the conditions laid down in a call for applications by the authority empowered to conclude contracts of employment are binding upon that authority.

To permit a selection board and the authority empowered to conclude contracts of employment to depart from a vacancy notice and its supplementary documents, without a sufficient basis having been adequately publicised in a timely manner, would deprive those documents of the essential role they must play in the recruitment procedure, namely to inform interested parties, in as accurate a fashion as possible, as to the nature of the conditions of eligibility for the post in question.

Although the written test was only one factor in the assessment of the candidates’ merits, like the covering letter, the curriculum vitæ and the oral test, its cancellation cannot in any circumstances be regarded as a matter which could arise from the absence of any reference to it in the invitation to candidates and the explanations given at the beginning of their hearing by the selection committee in the absence of timely publicisation, that is to say publicisation leaving the interested parties sufficient time to prepare for the tests and, where applicable, to refocus their preparation.

(see paras 18, 23, 24)

Judgments of 5 November 2003 in Cougnon v Court of Justice, T‑240/01, EU:T:2003:290, paragraphs 112 and 113, and 21 January 2004 in Robinson v Parliament, T‑328/01, EU:T:2004:13, paragraph 55

Judgments of 15 April 2010 in Angelidis v Parliament, F‑104/08, EU:F:2010:23, paragraph 78, and 16 July 2015 in Murariu v EIOPA, F‑116/14, EU:F:2015:89, paragraphs 74 and 75
ORDER OF THE EUROPEAN UNION CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL

(Third Chamber)

25 March 2015

Claudio Necci

v

European Commission

‛Civil service — Officials — Pensions — Transfer of pension rights acquired in a national pension scheme — Proposal concerning additional pensionable years — Complaint submitted out of time — Failure to follow the pre-litigation procedure — Manifest inadmissibility’

Application:

under Article 270 TFEU, applicable to the EAEC Treaty pursuant to Article 106a thereof, in which Mr Necci seeks annulment of the proposal of 18 March 2014 by which the European Commission determined, at his request, the number of additional years of pensionable service credited under the European Union pension scheme resulting from the transfer of pension rights which he had acquired in the Italian pension scheme.

Held:

The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible. Mr Necci is to bear his own costs.

Summary

Actions brought by officials — Act adversely affecting an official — Definition — Proposal to transfer to the European Union scheme pension rights acquired before entering the service of the European Union — Included

(Staff Regulations, Arts 90 and 91)

As far as the transfer of pension rights from a national pension scheme to the European Union pension scheme is concerned, a proposal concerning additional pensionable years to be credited may not be regarded as a mere statement of intent by the institution’s departments, for the information of the official concerned, in the expectation of receiving his agreement. A proposal concerning additional pensionable years is actually an act adversely affecting the official in question.

(see para. 13)

See:

Judgments in Verile and Gjergji v Commission, F‑130/11, EU:F:2013:195, paras 38 to 44 and the case-law cited therein, on appeal before the General Court of the European Union, Case T‑104/14 P
ORDER OF THE ACTING PRESIDENT OF THE THIRD CHAMBER OF THE EUROPEAN UNION CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL

12 January 2016

David Vermoesen

and

Michel Herkens

v

European Commission

‛Amicable settlement of the proceedings — Article 91(1) of the Rules of Procedure — Agreement between the parties on the initiative of the Tribunal — Removal from the register’

Application:

under Article 270 TFEU, applicable to the EAEC Treaty pursuant to Article 106a thereof, in which the applicants seek annulment of the Commission’s decision to limit to five years the period of retroactive recalculation of the fixed allowance for overtime to which the applicants are entitled.

Held:

Case F‑108/15, Vermoesen and Herkens v Commission is removed from the register of the Tribunal as a result of the agreement reached between D. Vermoesen and M. Herkens and the Commission. The parties are to bear the costs as agreed 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. 91)

(see para. 3)
ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE THIRD CHAMBER

OF THE EUROPEAN UNION CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL

12 November 2015

FM and FO

v

European Police College (CEPOL)

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

Application

:

under Article 270 TFEU, in which FM and FO sought in essence: the annulment of CEPOL’s decisions of 22 December 2014 by which CEPOL claimed to have accepted their purported resignation; and, in so far as necessary, the annulment of CEPOL’s decisions of 10 April 2015 rejecting the complaints submitted by the applicants between 13 January and 17 February 2015; compensation in respect of the material and non-material harm incurred.

Held

:

Case F‑105/15 is removed from the register of the Tribunal. CEPOL is to bear its own costs and is ordered to pay the costs incurred by FM and FO, in accordance with the terms of the agreement concluded 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. 91(1))

(see para. 3)
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.

Furthermore, individuals cannot rely on the principle of protection of legitimate expectations in order to oppose the application of a new legislative provision, especially in a sphere in which the legislature enjoys a considerable degree of latitude.

(see paras 25-28, 30, 36)

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 170 and the case-law cited
ORDER OF THE EUROPEAN UNION CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL

(First Chamber)

8 June 2016

François Massoulié

v

European Parliament

‛Civil service — Officials — European Parliament — Inter-institutional transfer — 2014 promotion procedure — Request seeking the conversion of staff reports into merit points — Reclassification of a complaint as a request — Article 90 of the Staff Regulations — Manifest inadmissibility’

Application:

under Article 270 TFEU, applicable to the EAEC Treaty pursuant to Article 106a thereof, in which Mr François Massoulié seeks annulment of the European Parliament’s decision of 8 April 2015 rejecting his request for the staff reports drawn up since his promotion to grade AD 12 to be converted into merit points.

Held:

Mr François Massoulié’s action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible. Mr Massoulié is to bear his own costs and is ordered to pay those incurred by the European Parliament.

Summary

Actions brought by officials — Prior administrative complaint — Submission of two complaints against the same measure adversely affecting an official — Admissibility of the first complaint to be submitted

(Staff Regulations, Art. 90(2))

An act which adversely affects an official may be the subject of only one complaint. Where two complaints have the same subject-matter, only one of them, namely the complaint first lodged, constitutes a complaint for the purposes of Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations, while the other, lodged subsequently, must be regarded as a note purely reiterating the complaint and cannot prolong the procedure.

(see para 31)

See:

Orders of 7 June 1991 in Weyrich v Commission, T‑14/91, EU:T:1991:28, para. 41; of 25 February 1992 in Torre v Commission, T‑67/91, EU:T:1992:23, para. 32; and judgment of 11 December 2007 in Sack v Commission, T‑66/05, EU:T:2007:370, paras 37 and 41
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 108/32

Action brought on 3 March 2006 — Abad-Villanueva and Others v Commission

(Case F-23/06)

(2006/C 108/60)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Roberto Abad-Villanueva and Others (represented by: T. Bontinck and J. Feld, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

The Tribunal is asked to

— annul the decisions notifying the applicants of their change of category, in so far as those decisions allocate a grade lower than that which should have been obtained under the provisions of the Staff Regulations, maintain the mulitiplier coefficient and cancel the applicants' promotion points;

— declare that Article 12 of Annex XIII of the Staff Regulations is unlawful;

— order the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicants were all successful candidates in internal competitions for change of category COM/PA/04 and COM/PB/04, in respect of which notices were published before the date on which the new Staff Regulations entered into force. After that date, they were appointed by the defendant to a higher category, but with the same grade, step and multiplier coefficient as before. By contrast, their promotion points were reset at zero.

In their application, the applicants submit that the appointment decisions infringe Articles 31 and 62 of the Staff Regulations and Article 2(1) and (2) and Article 5(2) of Annex XIII thereto, inasmuch as under those provisions they should have obtained a better grading. The defendant has thus infringed the right of all officials to be recruited to the grade stated in the competition notice, and has discriminated against the applicants as compared with the successful candidates in other competitions giving access to the same categories.

Furthermore, the applicants submit that there is no legal basis which permits the defendant to continue to apply to them the multiplier coefficients laid down by their former categories or to deprive them of the promotion points they have in their ‘rucksacks’.

Finally, according to the applicants, the contested decisions also infringe the principles of the protection of legitimate expectations, the protection of acquired rights and equal treatment.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 22/56

Action brought on 23 October 2007 — Behmer v Parliament

(Case F-124/07)

(2008/C 22/109)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Joachim Behmer (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and E. Marchal, lawyers)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

— Annul the decision of the appointing authority of the European Parliament awarding two promotion points to the applicant for 2005;

— Annul the decision of the appointing authority not to promote the applicant to grade AD 13 in 2006;

— Order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant, an official at the European Parliament in grade AD 12, alleges above all the unlawfulness of the decisions of the appointing authority, firstly, to award the applicant two promotion points for 2005 and, secondly, not to promote him to grade AD 13 in 2006.

The applicant submits that there was a manifest error of assessment, breach of the duty to state reasons, breach of point I.6 of the implementing measures relating to the attribution of promotion points and promotion and breach of the general principles that recruited officials are entitled to reasonable career prospects and of equal treatment.

In particular, he submits that there is infringement of Article 45 and Article 110(1) of the Staff Regulations, and puts forward pleas of illegality and of breach of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations.

Finally, the applicant claims that he suffered discrimination because of his activities representing the staff, in breach of Article 1d and of Article 24b of the Staff Regulations, of the sixth paragraph of Article 1 of Annex II to the Staff Regulations and of Article 17 of the framework agreement of 12 July 1990 between the European Parliament and the trade unions or professional organisations of the staff of the institution.
—

Annul the decisions of the European Commission of 12 January 2007, 26 February 2007 and 20 July 2007 to the extent that they deny the applicant immediate and comprehensive access to all data and documents in the defendant's possession concerning him. That means, at the present moment and in their current versions, transmission of complete, preferably electronic, copies of the following documents, or, in the alternative, an unrestricted right to examine the abovementioned data and documents and to make copies thereof and notes thereon: — his official personal file, in accordance with the requirements of Article 26 of the Staff Regulations, and all additional parallel files — including electronic ones (for example, Sysper 2); — all documents relating to the procedure and decisions concerning the assessments made of him and his promotions since 1 January 2002; — the OLAF files in Case OF/2002/0356; — the files in the proceedings concerning his application of 7 March 2005; — the report drawn up by the Investigation and Disciplinary Office (IDOC) in those proceedings, the IDOC files on which that report was based and all other documents in the possession of IDOC which concern or refer to the complainant; — his medical file, which the Commission must provide in readable form; — all other medical documents, reports and other similar material held by the Commission; — all other files, documents and correspondence in the Commission's possession relating to the facts set out in this case and/or individual procedures, that is to say, including the procedure in the complaints brought before the Ombudsman and the European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS);
—

Annul the Commission's decision of 23 July 2007 together with the implied decisions of 9 August 2007 and 11 September 2007 supplementary thereto and the decision of 9 November 2007 in so far as they reject the applicant's requests of 9 April 2007, 11 May 2007 and 11 October 2007 for authorisation to (i) publish documents (in the light of all legal considerations, in particular Articles 17, 17a, 19 and 24 of the Staff Regulations and any copyright and data protection provisions) and (ii) report (ex-)Commissioners and Commission officials to the prosecuting authorities;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 79/36

Action brought on 17 December 2007 — Hristova v Commission

(Case F-50/07)

(2008/C 79/68)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Valentina Hristova, (Pavlikeni, Bulgaria) (represented by: Georgi Kerelov, lawyer)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Pleas in law and main arguments

The annulment of the decision of 3 April 2007 of the selection board of the competition EPSO/AST/14/06 not to admit the applicant to the competition and not to mark her practical test because her post-secondary education is not in a field relevant to the duties described in the Notice of competition and she does not have 3 years full-time professional experience in the relevant field after having obtained the secondary education.

Form of order sought

The applicant claim that the Tribunal should:

— annul the decision of 3 April 2007 of the selection board for competition EPSO/AST/14/06 not to admit her to that competition;

— order the defendant to pay the applicant fixed damages assessed on equitable principles at EUR 28 718 (one year's salary) in respect of the material and non-material damage suffered by the applicant as a result of the illegal decision of the competition selection board, with statutory interest from the date on which the application was lodged;
—

Annul the decisions of the appointing authority to award the applicant two merit points for the years 2004 and 2006;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 92/51

Action brought on 25 January 2008 — Jörg Mölling v Europol

(Case F-11/08)

(2008/C 92/104)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Applicant: Jörg Mölling (The Hague, Netherlands) (represented by: P. de Casparis, lawyer)

Defendant: Europol

The subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of Europol's decision of 10 October 2007 refusing the applicant permission to participate in the selection procedure for the position of ‘first officer’ in the drugs unit and the decision of 23 October 2007 rejecting his complaint.

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

— annul Europol's decision of 10 October 2007 refusing him permission to participate in the selection procedure for the position of ‘first officer’ in the drugs unit and the decision of 23 October 2007 rejecting his complaint;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 171/50

Action brought on 22 January 2008 — Renier v Commission

(Case F-8/08)

(2008/C 171/98)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Colette Renier (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S. Orlandi, J.-N. Louis, A. Coolen and E. Marchal, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

The subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the individual decision of 11 April 2007 limiting the duration of the applicant's contract as a member of the contract staff to the period between 16 April 2007 and 15 December 2008 and an application for damages.

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

— annul the Commission's decision of 11 April 2007 inasmuch as it limits the duration of the applicant's contract as a member of the contract staff to the period between 16 April 2007 and 15 December 2008;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 142/39

Action brought on 7 January 2008 — Blais v European Central Bank

(Case F-6/08)

(2008/C 142/72)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Jessica Blais (Frankfurt am Main, Germany) (represented by: B. Karthaus, lawyer)

Defendant: European Central Bank

The subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the decision of the European Central Bank refusing to pay the applicant expatriation allowance on the ground that during the 10 years before her entry into the defendant's service, her place of residence was not outside the territory of the Member State in which she was employed, as required by Article 17(ii) of the Conditions of Employment (CoE).

Form of order sought

— Annul the decision of the European Central Bank of 15 August 2007, in the form of a communication from the President of the European Central Bank dated 8 November 2007, not to pay the applicant expatriation allowance;
—

annul the decision of 31 July 2007 to renew the applicant's contract of employment only until 1 June 2008 and the decision on the complaint of 29 February 2008;
—

Annul the decisions of the appointing authority not to promote the applicants to grade AST 7 for the 2007 promotion exercise (2007 session) and, in so far as it is possible, the decisions to promote to that grade, for the same promotion exercise, the officials whose names appear in the list of promotions published in Staff Note No 136/07 of 16 July 2007 and who were performing duties at a lower level of responsibility than theirs;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 313/60

Action brought on 15 October 2008 — Notarnicola v Court of Auditors

(Case F-85/08)

(2008/C 313/110)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Pietro Notarnicola (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: A. Gross, lawyer)

Defendant: Court of Auditors of the European Communities

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the decision of the defendant informing the applicant of his dismissal and reinstatement of the applicant and, in the alternative, an order that the defendant pay a sum as compensation for the material and non-material loss suffered by the applicant.

Form of order sought

— Annul the decision of 16 July 2008 and, accordingly, annul the decision of 5 March 2008 informing the applicant of his dismissal with effect from 15 April 2008;

— Reinstate the applicant as a member of the contractual staff pursuant to the contract of 23 August 2007, with retroactive payment of salary from 16 April 2008 until the date of judgment;
—

Annul the implicit decision rejecting the claim for revision of the calculation of pension annuities to be taken into account for transfer of his pension rights to the Community scheme;