Staff case summary



Staff case summary

Summary

1. Appeals – Appeal held to be well founded – Judgment to be given on the substance by the appeal court – Condition – Whether the state of the proceedings permits final judgment to be given – Meaning

(Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 61, first para., and Annex, Art. 13(1))

2. Community law – Principles – Rights of the defence – Audi alteram partem rule – Scope

3. Procedure – Plea of inadmissibility – Purpose – No obligation on the party who raises the plea to put forward in his pleadings his arguments on the substance of the dispute

(Rules of Procedure of the Court, Art. 91; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 114)

4. Officials – Actions – Unlimited jurisdiction – Scope

(Staff Regulations of Officials, Art. 91(1))

5. Review – Finding that the unity or consistency of Community law is affected – Criteria for assessment – Inferences to be drawn

(Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 62b, first para.)

1. As a rule, the state of the proceedings does not permit final judgment to be given by the appeal court within the meaning of the first paragraph of Article 61 of the Statute of the Court of Justice and Article 13(1) of the Annex to that Statute where the court at first instance dismissed the action as inadmissible by upholding a plea of inadmissibility and did not reserve a decision on that plea for the final judgment. However, in appeal proceedings it is possible, in certain circumstances, for a ruling to be given on the substance of such an action. That may be so where, first, the setting aside of the judgment or order under appeal necessarily brings about a definitive resolution of the substance of the action in question, or second, the examination of the substance of the application for annulment is based on arguments exchanged by the parties in the appeal proceedings in response to the reasoning of the court at first instance.

It is true that Article 13(1) of the Annex to the Statute of the Court of Justice, which governs the decision of the General Court if the appeal is well founded, is not worded in exactly the same way as the first paragraph of Article 61 of the Statute, which is the relevant provision for the Court of Justice. However, in a situation in which it transpires that the court at first instance incorrectly dismissed the action as inadmissible by upholding a plea of inadmissibility, not reserving a decision on that plea for the final judgment, the expression ‘where the state of the proceedings … permits’ must be interpreted in the same manner in applying those provisions, regardless of the fact that Article 61 of the Statute, unlike Article 13(1) of the Annex thereto, confers on the Court of Justice a discretion, where the state of the proceedings so permits, authorising it to refer the case back to the General Court for final judgment. In those particular circumstances, the Court must find that the state of the proceedings does not permit judgment to be given on the substance of the case and refer it back to the court seised at first instance and cannot exercise any discretion in that regard.

2. The rights of the defence include the right to a fair hearing. That principle applies to any procedure which may result in a decision by a Community institution perceptibly affecting a person’s interests. It means, as a rule, that the parties to proceedings have a right to be given the opportunity to comment on the facts and documents on which a judicial decision will be based and to discuss the evidence produced and the observations made to the court as well as the pleas in law raised by the court of its own motion on which it intends to base its decision. In order to satisfy the requirements associated with the right to a fair hearing, it is important for the parties to be able to debate and be heard on the matters of fact and of law which will determine the outcome of the proceedings. The Community Courts must ensure that the rule that the parties should be heard is observed in proceedings before them and that they themselves observe that rule. That rule must benefit all parties to proceedings before the Community judicature, irrespective of their legal status. The Community institutions may also, therefore, avail themselves of that principle when they are parties to such proceedings.

3. A defendant cannot be criticised for having freely decided not to present at first instance its arguments on the substance, by purposely limiting its defence to a plea of inadmissibility. The plea of inadmissibility provided for in both Article 91 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice and Article 114 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court as a preliminary issue makes it possible, for reasons of economy of procedure, to confine the debate and examination, at an early stage in the proceedings, to the question whether the action at issue is admissible. Thus, it is possible, as a result of the preliminary issue, to avoid a situation in which the parties’ pleadings and the court’s examination go into the substance of the case, even though the action is inadmissible. On the other hand, where the action is declared admissible because the plea of inadmissibility is rejected or where a decision on that plea is reserved for the final judgment, there must be an exchange of arguments on the substance of the application at a subsequent stage.

It would therefore be inconsistent with the logic of the rules on pleas of inadmissibility to oblige a defendant who raises such a plea to put forward, as a precaution, at the same time or, where he has been successful at first instance, in the response to the appeal, his arguments on the substance of the dispute.

4. The unlimited jurisdiction conferred on the Community judicature by Article 91(1) of the Staff Regulations of Officials entrusts it with the task of providing a complete solution to the disputes brought before it. It enables it, even in the absence of any formal claim for such relief, not only to annul the measure in point but also, where appropriate, to order of its own motion that compensation be paid by the defendant for the non‑material damage caused by maladministration on its part. However, the Community judicative cannot, as a general rule, base its decisions on a plea raised of its own motion – even one involving a matter of public policy – without first having invited the parties to submit their observations on that plea.

As a consequence, the unlimited jurisdiction enjoyed by the Community Courts in disputes involving claims for damages between Community institutions and their employees cannot be regarded as conferring on those courts the power to absolve such disputes from observance of procedural rules governing the principle that the parties have the right to be heard.

5. A judgment in which the General Court departed from the established case‑law of the Court concerning two rules of procedure which do not pertain solely to the law relating to the matter at issue and which occupy an important position in the Community legal order constitutes a decision affecting the unity or consistency of Community law within the meaning of the first paragraph of Article 62b of the Statute of the Court of Justice, where that judgment deals with a certain question for the first time and could therefore constitute a precedent for future cases.

Moreover, having regard to the terms of the first paragraph of Article 62b of the Statute of the Court of Justice, that court cannot confine itself to finding that the unity or consistency of Community law is affected without drawing the necessary inferences from that finding as regards the dispute in question. Such a judgment must therefore be set aside and the case referred back to the court seised at first instance.

6.