ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
JUDGMENT OF THE CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL (First Chamber)

11 July 2007

Case F-7/06

B

v

Commission of the European Communities

(Civil service – Officials – Remuneration – Expatriation allowance – Conditions in Article 4(1) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations)

Application: brought under Articles 236 EC and 152 EA, in which B essentially seeks annulment of the Commission appointing authority’s decision of 26 April 2005 to refuse to pay the applicant an expatriation allowance, together with the appointing authority’s decision of 10 October 2005 rejecting the applicant’s complaint against the decision of 26 April 2005.

Held: The action is dismissed. The parties are ordered to bear their own costs.

Summary

Officials – Remuneration – Expatriation allowance – Conditions for granting

(Staff Regulations, Annex VII, Art. 4(1)(b))

In the exercise of the broad discretion it has to fix the conditions for entitlement to payment of the expatriation allowance, the Community legislature may subject officials with dual nationality to the normal rules – even if they are not in a comparable situation to that of persons of single nationality – in order to restrict the number of people receiving the expatriation allowance payable pursuant to Article 4(1)(b) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations. Strict conditions, such as not having any habitual residence in the country of employment for 10 years prior to entering the service, are intended to ensure that the allowance is granted to officials with the nationality of their country of employment only where the presumption is rebutted that a person’s nationality is a serious indication that he has numerous ties with the country of his nationality, and where it is established that any lasting tie between the official and that country has been broken.

That restriction of the number of people receiving the expatriation allowance does not constitute arbitrary or inappropriate discrimination in relation to the objective pursued by Article 4 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations. The fact that the application of the categories laid down in Article 4 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations may give rise to marginal cases in which officials find that payment of the expatriation allowance is denied to them when their circumstances are close to those defined by that article does not imply that the provisions in question contain arbitrary differentiation, when, based on objective factors, they apply in the same manner to all officials who are placed in the situation contemplated by the Staff Regulations.

(see paras 39-41, 45-46)

See:

147/79 Hochstrass v Court of Justice [1980] ECR 3005, para. 12; 1322/79 Vutera v Commission [1981] ECR 127, para. 9; C-148/02 Garcia Avello [2003] ECR I‑11613, paras 31 to 37

T-18/91 Costacurta Gelabert v Commission [1992] ECR II‑1655, para. 42; T‑18/98 Reichert v Parliament [2000] ECR-SC I‑A‑73 and II‑309, para. 25; T‑317/99 Lemaître v Commission [2000] ECR-SC I‑A‑191 and II‑867, para. 50; T‑251/02 E v Commission [2004] ECR-SC I‑A‑359 and II‑1643, paras 124 and 126
Staff case summary



Staff case summary

Summary

1. Officials – Competitions – Selection board – Decision not to admit to tests

(Staff Regulations, Art. 25, second para.)

2. Officials – Non-contractual liability of the institutions – Conditions – Unlawfulness – Damage – Causal link

1. The requirement that a decision adversely affecting a person should state the reasons on which it is based is intended to provide the person concerned with sufficient details to allow him to ascertain whether or not the decision is well founded and make it possible for the decision to be the subject of judicial review. As regards more particularly decisions of refusal of admission to a competition it is necessary for the selection board to state clearly the conditions in the notice of competition which it considers the candidate has not satisfied.

(see para. 22)

See:

69/83 Lux v Court of Auditors [1984] ECR 2447, para. 36

T-55/91 Fascilla v Parliament [1992] ECR II‑1757, para. 32; T‑145/02 Petrich v Commission [2004] ECR-SC I‑A‑101 and II‑447, para. 54; T-376/03 Hendrickx v Council [2005] ECR-SC I‑A‑83 and II‑379, para. 68

2. The Community can only be held liable for damages if a number of conditions are satisfied as regards the illegality of the allegedly wrongful act committed by the institutions, the actual harm suffered, and the existence of a causal link between the act and the damage alleged to have been suffered.

In order to establish such a link, evidence must be adduced that there is a direct causal nexus between the fault committed by the Community institution concerned and the injury pleaded.

In the particular context of a competition, the degree of certainty of the causal link is attained where the unlawful act committed by a Community institution has definitely deprived a person, not necessarily of appointment to the post in question, to which the person concerned could never prove he had a right, but of a genuine chance of being appointed, resulting in material damage for the person concerned in the form of loss of income.

(see paras 38, 40-41)

See:

111/86 Delauche v Commission [1987] ECR 5345, para. 30

T-3/92 Latham v Commission [1994] ECR-SC I‑A‑23 and II‑83, para. 63; T‑589/93 Ryan-Sheridan v Eurofound [1996] ECR-SC I‑A‑27 and II‑77, para. 141; T-45/01 Sanders and Others v Commission [2004] ECR II‑3315, paras 149 and 150; T-250/04 Combescot v Commission [2007] ECR-SC I‑A‑2‑0000 and II‑A‑2‑0000, paras 95 and 96

F-46/07 Tzirani v Commission [2008] ECR-SC I‑A‑1‑0000 and II‑A‑1‑0000, para. 215
JUDGMENT OF THE CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL

(Second Chamber)

14 July 2011

Case F-98/07

Nicole Petrilli

v

European Commission

(Civil service – Auxiliary contract staff – Fixed-term contract – Rules on the maximum duration for employing non-permanent staff in the Commission services – Decision to refuse renewal of the contract – Unlawfulness – Extent of compensation for damage – Equitable assessment)

Application: brought under Articles 236 EC and 152 EA, in which Ms Petrilli seeks annulment of the Commission’s decision of 20 July 2007 rejecting her request for an extension of her contract as an auxiliary member of the contract staff, together with an order for the Commission to pay damages.

Held: The monetary compensation owed to the applicant by the Commission pursuant to the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 29 January 2009 in Case F-98/07 Petrilli v Commission is fixed at the sum of EUR 12 097.43, plus interest at the base rate fixed by the European Central Bank for its main refinancing operations, applicable during the period concerned, increased by two points. The Commission is to bear all the costs relating to the phase of the proceedings prior to delivery of the judgment of 29 January 2009, cited above, as well as its own costs and half of the applicant’s costs relating to the subsequent phase of the proceedings. The applicant is to bear half of her own costs relating to the phase of the proceedings after delivery of the judgment of 29 January 2009, cited above.

Summary

Officials – Actions – Actions for damages – Annulment of the illegal act in dispute – Whether appropriate reparation for non-material damage

(Staff Regulations, Arts 90 and 91)

The annulment of an unlawful act may in itself constitute appropriate and, in principle, sufficient reparation for any non-material damage that act may have caused, unless the applicant demonstrates that he has suffered non-material damage separable from the illegality of the act justifying its annulment and not capable of being entirely remedied by that annulment.

(see para. 28)

See:

9 July 1987, 44/85, 77/85, 294/85 and 295/85 Hochbaum and Rawes v Commission, para. 22; 7 February 1990, C-343/87 Culin v Commission, paras 27 and 28

9 November 2004, T-116/03 Montalto v Council, para. 127; 6 June 2006, T-10/02 Girardot v Commission, para. 131

9 December 2010, T-526/08 P Commission v Strack, para. 58

8 May 2008, F-6/07 Suvikas v Council, para. 151
JUDGMENT OF THE CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL

(Third Chamber)

11 December 2008

Case F-92/07

Pascal Evraets

v

Commission of the European Communities

(Civil service – Officials – Promotion – 2006 promotion procedure – Ability to work in a third language)

Application: brought under Articles 236 EC and 152 EA, in which Mr Evraets seeks, in particular, annulment of the decision not to promote him for the 2006 promotion procedure.

Held: The decision not to promote the applicant for the 2006 promotion procedure is annulled. The Commission is ordered to bear its own costs and to pay the costs of the applicant. The Council of the European Union, which intervened in support of the Commission, is to bear its own costs.

Summary

1. Procedure – Application initiating proceedings – Formal requirements – Contested act not produced

(Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 21; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 44(3) to (6))

2. Officials – Promotion – Conditions – Demonstration of ability to work in a third language

(Staff Regulations, Art. 45(2); Annexes III, Art. 7, and XIII, Art. 11)

1. Where an applicant has failed to annex the contested decision to his application and the Registrar, contrary to Article 44(6) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, has not invited him to rectify that omission, the Community judicature cannot deny him the opportunity to do so by declaring his action inadmissible for failure to comply with the conditions of Article 44(4) of those Rules of Procedure.

(see para. 21)

See:

F-48/06 Avanzata and Others v Commission [2008] ECR-SC I A‑0000 and II‑A‑0000, paras 49 and 50

2. Article 45(2) of the Staff Regulations, in the version resulting from Regulation No 723/2004 amending the Staff Regulations of Officials and the Conditions of employment of other servants, which requires officials to demonstrate, before their first promotion, their ability to work in a third language, applies only from the entry into force of the joint implementing provisions adopted by the institutions by mutual agreement.

Since the legislature has, in any event, under Article 11 of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations, precluded its application to promotions that take effect prior to 1 May 2006, Article 45(2) cannot be applied prior to the entry into force of those joint implementing provisions under the terms required by the legislature, that is to say, with a guarantee that it will be uniformly applied in the different institutions, and with a connection between this new requirement under the Staff Regulations and the opportunity for officials to have training in a third language. Thus an institution cannot apply that article of the Staff Regulations according to rules which it alone has laid down.

(see paras 35-38)
JUDGMENT OF THE CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL

(First Chamber)

24 March 2011

Case F-104/09

Diego Canga Fano

v

Council of the European Union

(Civil service — Officials — Promotion — 2009 promotion exercise — Decision not to promote — Consideration of comparative merits — Manifest error of assessment — Action for annulment — Action for damages)

Application: brought under Article 270 TFEU, applicable to the EAEC Treaty pursuant to Article 106a thereof, in which Mr Canga Fano seeks annulment of the decision not to promote him to grade AD 13 under the 2009 promotion exercise and an order that the Council pay him the sum of EUR 200 000 by way of compensation for the non-pecuniary and professional damage which he claims to have sustained.

Held: The action is dismissed. The applicant is ordered to pay all the costs.

Summary

1. Officials — Promotion — Consideration of comparative merits — Administration's discretion

(Staff Regulations, Art. 45)

2. Officials — Promotion — Procedure

1. The discretion conferred on the administration for the purposes of considering the comparative merits of officials who are candidates for promotion pursuant to Article 45 of the Staff Regulations is limited by the need to consider candidates’ comparative merits carefully and impartially, in the interest of the service and in accordance with the principle of equal treatment. In practice, that examination must be carried out on a basis of equality, using comparable sources of information.

In that regard, without prejudice to the practical effect that the appointing authority’s discretion must be acknowledged to have, an error of assessment of the merits of an official who is not promoted is manifest where it is easily recognisable and can be readily detected, in the light of the criteria to which the legislature intended decisions on promotion to be subject.

(see paras 34, 35)

See:

15 September 2005, T-132/03 Casini v Commission, para. 53

2. The rules applicable to the assessment procedure for officials do not provide that the assessors are to comment on whether the official being appraised deserves to be promoted. Where the assessors take the initiative to recommend promotion for one or other of the members of their team, they are expressing a view that cannot bind the appointing authority, in so far as promotion can be awarded only after consideration of the comparative merits of all the officials of an institution who are eligible for promotion to the same grade. Consequently, such appraisals cannot have the same weight as those resulting from elements which the marker is required to appraise. Secondly, the appointing authority is entitled to promote an official when it considers that such promotion is justified, even in the absence of comments in favour of promotion expressed in the official’s staff report.

(see para. 60)
Staff case summary



Staff case summary

Summary

1. Actions brought by officials — Replacement of the grounds of the contested measure during the procedure — Not permissible — Exception

(Staff Regulations, Arts 90 and 91)

2. Officials — Remuneration — Family allowances — Dependent child allowance — Right to extension without age restriction where child cannot earn a livelihood — Administration’s obligations — Circumscribed powers

(Staff Regulations, Annex VII, Art. 2(5))

1. The administration cannot replace or add a ground to a decision during the procedure unless it is under a mandatory duty which leaves it no discretion, so that the annulment of the decision at issue could only have the effect of requiring the administration to adopt a fresh decision having the same substance as the decision annulled.

(see para. 39)

See:

17 June 2008, F‑97/07 De Fays v Commission , para. 70; 14 April 2011, F‑113/07 Šimonis v Commission , para. 93 and the case-law cited therein

2. Payment of the allowance provided for in Article 2(5) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations may, if the child is prevented by serious illness or invalidity from earning a livelihood, be extended without age restriction and for the entire duration of that illness or invalidity. That provision does not confer on the competent authority any discretion as to whether or not to grant the allowance at issue, but confers on it circumscribed powers in so far as its mandatory wording makes it clear that the authority is bound to grant the dependent child allowance if it finds that the conditions listed by that provision are satisfied, and to refuse to grant it if not.

(see para. 40)

See:

21 October 2003, T‑302/01 Šimonis v Commission , para. 38
JUDGMENT OF THE CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL

(Third Chamber)

29 November 2011





Case F-119/10





Roberto Di Tullio

v

European Commission

(Civil service – Members of the temporary staff – Leave for national service – Article 18 of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants – Professional soldier – Completion of a period of territorial command – Refusal)

Application: brought under Article 270 TFEU, applicable to the EAEC Treaty by virtue of Article 106a thereof, in which Mr Di Tullio principally seeks annulment of the decision by which the Commission refused to grant him leave for national service.

Held: The applicant’s action is dismissed. The applicant is to bear all the costs.

Summary

Officials – Members of the temporary staff – Leave for national service – Military service – Definition

(Conditions of Employment of Other Servants, Art. 18, first para.)

According to the first sentence of the first paragraph of Article 18 of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants, a member of the temporary staff who is called up for military service, alternative services or reserve training or who is recalled to serve in the armed forces shall be assigned leave for national service.

The situation referred to in the first paragraph of Article 18 of the Conditions of Employment is clearly only that in which a member of the temporary staff is required, under national legislation on military service, to complete in the Member State of which he is a national a limited period of military training, for example as a reserve officer. The provisions do not, on the other hand, refer to a situation in which a national civil servant is required, at the end of a period of secondment to the European institutions under a contract as a member of the temporary staff, to rejoin his administration in order to satisfy obligations associated with the progress of his career, even if that civil servant belongs to a body whose members are subject to military rules and discipline.

Moreover, a member of the temporary staff may be regarded as ‘recalled to serve in the armed forces’ within the meaning of the first paragraph of Article 18 of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants only if one or more age groups are recalled because of the threat of armed conflict, for example.

(see paras 35, 38, 40)
EN
ReportsofCases
ECLI:EU:F:2011 :188 1JUDGMENT O F THE CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL
(Third Ch amber)
29 November 2011
Case F-119/10
Roberto Di Tullio
v
European Comm ission
(Civil service — Members of the temp orary staff — Leave for national service — Article 18 o f the 
Conditions of Employment of Other Servants — Professional soldier — Completion o f a pe riod of 
territorial command — Refusal)
Application:brought under Article 270 T FEU, applicable to the EAEC Treaty by virtue of Article 106a 
thereof, in which M r Di Tullio principally seeks annulment of the decision b y which th e 
Commission r efused to grant him leave for national service.
Held: The applicant’s action is dismissed. The applicant is to bear all the costs.
Summ ary
Officials — Members of the temporary staff — Leave for national service — Military se rvice — 
Definition
(Conditions of Employment of Other Servants, Art. 18, first para.)
According to the first sentence of the first paragraph of Article 18 o f the Conditions of Employment of 
Other Servants, a mem ber of the temp orary staff w ho is called up for military service, alternative 
services or reserve training or who is recalled to serve in th e armed forces shall be assigned leave for 
national service.
The situation referred to in the first paragraph of Article 18 o f the Conditions of Employment is clearly 
only that in which a mem ber of the temp orary staff is required, under national legislation on m ilitary 
service, to complete in th e M ember State of which he is a n ational a l imited pe riod of military 
training, for example as a r eserve o fficer. The provisions do no t, on th e other hand, refer to a 
situation i n which a n ational civil servant is required, at the end of a pe riod of secondment to th e 
European institutions under a c ontract as a mem ber of th e temp orary staff, to rejoin h is 
administration i n order to satisfy obligations associated with th e progress of his career, eve n if that 
civil servant belongs to a b ody whose mem bers are subject to military rules and discipline.
2 ECLI:EU:F:2011 :188SUMM ARY–CASEF-119/10
DITULLIOvCOMM ISSION
Moreover, a mem ber of the temp orary staff m ay be regarded as ‘recalled to serve in th e armed forces’ 
within th e me aning of the first paragraph of Article 18 o f the Conditions of Employment of Other 
Servants on ly if on e or more age groups are recalled because of the th reat of armed conflict, for 
example.
(see paras 35, 38, 40)
JUDGMENT OF THE EUROPEAN UNION CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL

(First Chamber)

5 June 2012

Case F‑14/11

AW

v

European Commission

(Civil service — Officials — Social security — Serious illness — Payment of costs of dental prostheses — Reimbursement ceiling — Plea of illegality — Legitimate expectations)

Application: brought under Article 270 TFEU, applicable to the EAEC Treaty pursuant to Article 106a thereof, in which AW requests the Tribunal, first, to annul the Commission’s decisions applying a reimbursement ceiling to the costs of dental prostheses incurred for his daughter, and, second, to order the Commission to pay him compensation.

Held: AW’s action is dismissed. Each party is to bear its own costs.

Summary

Officials — Social security — Sickness insurance — Medical expenses — Serious illness — Reimbursement ceilings — Lawfulness — Conditions

(Staff Regulations, Art. 72(1))

The rate of 100% referred to in Article 72(1) of the Staff Regulations establishes only the maximum reimbursable rate in the event of serious illness in particular, and does not imply any obligation to reimburse members and persons covered by their insurance to the extent of 100% in all cases. Furthermore, since the resources of the Joint Sickness Insurance Scheme of the institutions of the European Union are limited to the contributions of members and of the institutions and the Scheme’s financial equilibrium requires that there must be a correlation between expenditure and contributions, the institutions are entitled, in the absence of reimbursement ceilings laid down by the Staff Regulations, to set such ceilings in the implementing provisions for Article 72(1), without, however, exceeding the limits to which their power is subject by virtue of the principle of social insurance cover underlying that provision of the Staff Regulations. That principle in no way implies that an insured person is entitled to reimbursement of a predetermined proportion of medical expenses which he has incurred, regardless of the price charged by the supplier of the medical services in question.

(see paras 49, 51)

See:

12 July 1991, T‑110/89 Pincherle v Commission, para. 25; 25 February 1992, T‑41/90 Barassi v Commission, para. 33; 26 October 1993, T‑6/92 and T‑52/92 Reinarz v Commission, para. 74