ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Staff case summary



Staff case summary

Summary

Procedure – Application for legal aid – Costs covered

(Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Arts 94 and 95; Council Decision 2004/752, Art. 3(4))

It is apparent from Articles 94 and 95 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance that legal aid must, in principle, be reserved for the payment of official costs incurred either when an application for aid is submitted or thereafter. Unless there are special circumstances, it would neither be consistent with the letter and spirit of those articles nor would it be in the interest of the sound administration of justice for costs incurred before that date to be paid retroactively through legal aid. Where costs have been incurred before the application for aid was submitted, the presumption is, until proved to the contrary, that the applicant was able to pay them and that one of the conditions for granting legal aid is therefore not met.

(see para. 16)

See:

order of 3 April 2006 in Case T-49/04 AJ Hassan v Council and Commission , not published in the ECR; order of 27 October 2006 in Case T-318/01 AJ Othman v Council and Commission , not published in the ECR
ORDER OF THE CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL (Full Court)

13 July 2007

Case F-1/05 INT

Pia Landgren

v

European Training Foundation (ETF)

(Procedure – Interpretation of an order – Conditions for the admissibility of the application)

Application: brought under Article 129 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, applicable mutatis mutandis to the Civil Service Tribunal pursuant to Article 3(4) of Council Decision 2004/752/EC, Euratom of 2 November 2004 establishing the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (OJ 2004 L 333, p. 7), until the entry into force of its rules of procedure, in which the ETF seeks an interpretation of the order of the Tribunal (Full Court) in Case F-1/05 Landgren v ETF [2007] ECR-SC I-A-1-0000 and II‑A‑1‑0000.

Held: The application for an interpretation is dismissed as inadmissible. The ETF is ordered to pay the costs of the present proceedings.

Summary

Procedure – Interpretation of a judgment – Conditions for the admissibility of the application

(Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 129; Council Decision 2004/752, Art. 3(4))

For an application for interpretation of a judgment to be admissible, it must concern the operative part of the judgment in question and the essential grounds thereof, and seek to resolve an obscurity or ambiguity that may affect the meaning or scope of that judgment, in so far as that judgment was intended to resolve the particular case before the Court. Such an application is therefore inadmissible where it seeks to obtain from the Court in question an opinion on the application, implementation or consequences of its judgment or order.

(see para. 8)

See:

5/55 Assider v High Authority [1954-1956] ECR 135, 142; 70/63 A High Authority v Collotti and Court of Justice [1965] ECR 275, 280; 110/63 A Willame v Commission [1966] ECR 287, 290; 206/81 A Alvarez v Parliament [1983] ECR 2865, paras 8 to 11; 146/85 INT and 431/85 INT Maindiaux and Others v ESC and Others [1988] ECR 2003, paras 5 and 6

T-22/91 INT Raiola-Denti and Others v Council [1993] ECR II‑817, para. 6; T‑573/93 (129) Caballero Montoya v Commission [1997] ECR-SC I‑A‑271 and II‑761, para. 27
Staff case summary



Staff case summary

Summary

Officials – Actions – Amicable settlement of dispute before the Civil Service Tribunal – Removal from the register

(Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 87(5), second para., and Art. 98, first para.; Council Decision 2004/752, Art. 3(4))
ORDER OF THE CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL

(First Chamber)

20 April 2007

Case F-13/07

L

v

European Medicines Agency (EMEA)

(Officials – Invalidity – Invalidity Committee – Refusal to convene – Manifest inadmissibility)

Application: brought under Articles 236 EC and 152 EA, in which L seeks annulment of the decision of 31 March 2006 refusing his request for the establishment of an Invalidity Committee and, insofar as is necessary, the decision of 25 October 2006 rejecting his complaint against that decision.

Held: The application is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible. The parties are ordered to bear their own costs.

Summary

1. Procedure – Decision taken by reasoned order – Conditions

(Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 111; Council Decision 2004/752, Art. 3(4))

2. Officials – Actions – Prior administrative complaint – Time-limits

(Staff Regulations, Art. 90(2))

1. The situation of manifest inadmissibility referred to in Article 111 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance does not apply solely in cases where the failure to observe the rules on admissibility is so clear and flagrant that no reasonable argument can be relied on in favour of admissibility, but also in cases where, upon reading the file, the Court hearing the case, provided that it considers itself to be sufficiently informed by the documents before it, is entirely convinced of the inadmissibility of the application, in particular because that application fails to observe the requirements laid down by settled case-law, and it further considers that the holding of a hearing would be unlikely to provide any new information whatsoever in that respect. In such a case, the dismissal of the application by means of an order not only benefits procedural economy, but also saves the parties the costs entailed by the holding of a hearing.

(see paras 20-21)

See:

F-87/06 Manté v Council [2007] ECR-SC I-A-1-000 and II-A-1-000, para. 16

2. The notification of a decision of the administration to a person able to represent the official, such as his or her spouse, sets running the limitation period of three months laid down in Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations. The date on which the official actually learns of the decision, which depends on uncertain circumstances of a private nature, unconnected with the diligence with which the administration has notified the decision and which it would not be able to substantiate, is irrelevant here.

(see paras 30, 32)

See:

T-196/95 H v Commission [1997] ECR-SC I‑A‑133 and II‑403, paras 32 to 35
ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE FIRST CHAMBER

OF THE CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL

31 March 2011

Case F-23/07 RENV-RX

M

v

European Medicines Agency (EMA)

(Amicable settlement on the initiative of the Tribunal — Removal from the register)

Application: brought under Articles 236 EC and 152 EA, in which M seeks, first, annulment of the decision of the European Medicines Agency (EMA) of 25 October 2006 rejecting his application for an Invalidity Committee to be convened, and second, an order that the EMA pay him damages.

Held: Case F-23/07 RENV-RX is removed from the register of the Tribunal. The EMA is to pay the applicant the sum of EUR 3 000. The EMA is to pay all the costs in cases F-23/07, T-12/08 P, T-12/08 P RENV-RX and F-23/07 RENV-RX.

Summary

Officials — Actions — 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 CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL

(First Chamber)

6 March 2008

Case F-55/07

Giuseppe Tiralongo

v

Commission of the European Communities

(Civil service – Former temporary agent – Actions – Action for damages – Non‑renewal of a fixed-term contract – Manifest inadmissibility)

Application: brought under Articles 236 EC and 152 EA, in which Mr Tiralongo seeks, in particular, an order requiring the Commission to compensate the material and non-material damage he allegedly suffered as a result of a series of unlawful actions which he claims the Commission committed in connection with the renewal of his contract.

Held: The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible. Each party is to bear its own costs.

Summary

1. Procedure – Admissibility of actions – Assessment by reference to the rules in force when the application was lodged

(Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal, Art. 76)

2. Officials – Actions – Actions for damages – Pleas in law

(Staff Regulations, Arts 90 and 91)

1. Although the rule laid down in Article 76 of the Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal that the Tribunal may, by way of an order, dismiss an action which appears manifestly bound to fail is a procedural rule which, as such, applies to all proceedings pending before the Tribunal at the time when it enters into force, the same is not true of rules on the basis of which the Tribunal may, under that article, regard an action as manifestly inadmissible, and which may only be those applicable on the date when the action is brought.

(see para. 26)

2. An official who has failed to bring, within the periods laid down in Articles 90 and 91 of the Staff Regulations, an action for annulment of a measure alleged to have adversely affected him cannot repair that omission and thus obtain further time for bringing proceedings by lodging a claim for compensation for the damage caused by that measure, whatever the material or non-material nature of that damage.

(see paras 31, 33, 40, 41)

See:

T-27/90 Latham v Commission [1991] ECR II‑35, para. 38; T-20/92 Moat v Commission [1993] ECR II‑799, para. 46; T-147/04 Ross v Commission [2005] ECR-SC I‑A‑171 and II‑771, para. 48
ORDER OF THE CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL

(Third Chamber)

1 July 2009

Case F-6/07 DEP

Risto Suvikas

v

Council of the European Union

(Civil service – Procedure – Taxation of costs)

Application: by which Mr Suvikas applied for taxation of costs relating to the judgment of 8 May 2008 in Case F-6/07 Suvikas v Council [2008] ECR-SC I‑A‑1‑0000 and II‑A‑1‑0000.

Held: The amount of the costs recoverable by the applicant in Case F-6/07 Suvikas v Council is fixed at EUR 11 640.

Summary

1. Procedure – Costs – Taxation – Elements to be taken into consideration – Scale of adviser’s work

(Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 91(b); Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal, Art. 122)

2. Procedure – Costs – Taxation – Recoverable costs – Office and telecommunication costs

(Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 91(b); Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal, Art. 122)

1. When assessing the scale of work by a party’s adviser in the proceedings before the Civil Service Tribunal in order to determine the amount of recoverable costs, the primary consideration of the Community judicature is the total number of hours of work which may appear to be objectively necessary for the purpose of those proceedings. While concise documents may be as much a reflection of their author’s ability to summarise, saving the Tribunal and the other party time, as a sign of quick work, the length of the documents cannot, in principle, be regarded as necessarily implying that the case objectively required a large amount of work.

(see paras 24, 26)

See:

T-290/94 DEP Kaysersberg v Commission [1998] ECR II‑4105, para. 20; T-171/00 Spruyt v Commission [2002] ECR-SC I‑A‑225 and II‑1127, para. 29

F‑100/05 DEP Chatziioannidou v Commission [2007] ECR-SC I-A-1-0000 and II-A-1-0000, para. 24

2. Where an appropriate computer system is not used, it is virtually impossible for a lawyer’s chambers to justify the share of office and telecommunication costs chargeable for each case in the chambers’ various operating costs. Consequently, where the various operating costs attributable to a particular case may be regarded as not included in the fee, it may be reasonable, in order to determine the amount of recoverable costs, to set a fixed sum.

(see para. 38)
ORDER OF THE CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL (Second Chamber)

26 June 2008

Case F-136/07

Bart Nijs

v

Court of Auditors of the European Communities

(Civil service – Officials – Previous complaint – Defect – Time-limit for instituting proceedings – Lateness – Manifest inadmissibility)

Application: brought under Articles 236 EC and 152 EA, in which Mr Nijs seeks, first, annulment of the decision of the appointing authority to demote him from Grade AD 10, step 6, to Grade AD 9, step 5, and of the associated and subsequent decisions, in particular that of 26 September 2006 to suspend him from his post, that of 27 September 2007 to open an administrative inquiry in respect of him, and that not to promote him to Grade AD 11 in 2007, together with the decision of the Court of Auditors of 8 March 2007 to renew the appointment of its Secretary General for a period of six years starting on 1 July 2007, and, second, compensation for the non-material and material harm which he claims to have suffered.

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

Summary

Procedure – Application initiating proceedings – Formal requirements

(Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal, Art. 35(1)(d))

An action by an official which does not precisely identify the measures being challenged and thus does not satisfy the requirements laid down in Article 35(1)(d) of the Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal is manifestly inadmissible.

(see para. 24)

See:

T-72/92 Benzler v Commission [1993] ECR II‑347, paras 16, 18 and 19
Staff case summary



Staff case summary

Summary

1. Officials – Decision adversely affecting an official – Obligation to state the reasons on which the decision is based – Scope – Application for payment of medical expenses

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

2. Officials – Actions – Acts adversely affecting an official – Confirmatory measure

(Staff Regulations, Arts 72(1), 90 and 91)

1. A decision rejecting an application for reimbursement of medical expenses contains an adequate statement of the reasons on which it is based where it informs the official of the way in which his application has been handled and the factual and legal grounds which justify coverage under the Rules on Sickness Insurance of the European Communities, even if not all the accounts sheets issued by the settlements office were sent to that official. The fact that the official was unaware of the existence of those accounts sheets before he received notification of the rejection decision has no bearing on the lawfulness of the decision.

Furthermore, and in any event, even if the reasons given for such a rejection decision are inadequate, it must be regarded as containing at the very least the initial elements of a statement of reasons enabling the institution to provide further information during the proceedings and to fulfil its obligation to state reasons.

(see paras 51, 52, 54)

See:

T‑37/89 Hanning v Parliament [1990] ECR II‑463, paras 41 and 44

2. A decision rejecting an application for the reimbursement of medical expenses at 100% which does not contain any new factor compared with an identical application which has previously been rejected and which has already been the subject of proceedings brought before the Community judicature does not change the legal position of the applicant and therefore does not constitute an act adversely affecting him within the meaning of Articles 90 and 91 of the Staff Regulations.

Even if such a decision might be regarded as a measure confirming, and thus indissociable from, the first decision and is, to that extent, capable of adversely affecting the official, the Community court hearing an action against that decision should automatically find that the action is between the same parties, has the same purpose and is based on the same submissions. In such circumstances, the action would be manifestly inadmissible under the principle of lis pendens.

(see paras 60-61)

See:

58/72 and 75/72 Perinciolo v Council [1973] ECR 511, paras 3 to 5; 172/83 and 226/83 Hoogovens Groep v Commission [1985] ECR 2831, para. 9

judgment of 14 June 2007 in T‑68/07 Landtag Schleswig-Holstein v Commission , not published in the ECR, para. 16; judgment of 9 July 2008 in T‑296/05 and T‑408/05 Marcuccio v Commission , not published in the ECR, paras 47 to 49; T‑143/08 Marcuccio v Commission [2008] ECR‑SC I‑A‑2‑0000 and II‑A‑2‑0000, paras 39 to 41; T‑144/08 Marcuccio v Commission [2008] ECR‑SC I‑A‑2‑0000 and II‑A‑2‑0000, paras 32 to 34

F‑80/06 Duyster v Commission [2008] ECR‑SC I‑A‑1‑0000 and II‑A‑1‑0000, para. 52
ORDER OF THE CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL

(First Chamber)

12 June 2009

Case F-67/08

Maria Teresa Visser-Fornt Raya

v

European Police Office (Europol)

(Civil service – Staff of Europol – Non‑extension of employment contract – Indefinite contract – Admissibility – Interest in bringing proceedings – Action against a decision which had been rescinded when the action was brought – Absence of a prior complaint)

Application: brought under Article 40(3) of the Convention based on Article K.3 of the Treaty on European Union, on the establishment of a European Police Office (Europol Convention), and Article 93(1) of the Staff Regulations applicable to Europol employees, in which Ms Visser-Fornt Raya seeks annulment of the decision of the Director of Europol of 4 October 2007 refusing to renew her contract and to offer her an indefinite contract, of the decision of the Director of Europol of 29 April 2008 rejecting her complaint against the abovementioned decision of 4 October 2007, and of the decision of the Director of Europol of 12 June 2008 once again refusing to renew her contract.

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

Summary

Officials – Actions – Interest in bringing proceedings – Assessment as at the date on which the action is brought – Contested decision rescinded

A party’s interest in bringing proceedings must exist at the stage of lodging the action, failing which it will be inadmissible. An action for annulment brought against a decision which had been rescinded prior to the date on which the application was registered because a fresh decision had been adopted, following reconsideration, on other grounds and on the basis of other factors than those on which the administration based its first decision is therefore inadmissible. The fresh decision does not constitute a confirmatory decision but, on the contrary, an autonomous decision which replaces the previous decision.

(see paras 32, 33, 35-36)

See:

C-362/05 P Wunenburger v Commission [2007] ECR I‑4333, para. 42

T-49/91 Turner v Commission [1992] ECR II‑1855, paras 24 to 26; T-128/96 Lebedef v Commission [1996] ECR-SC I‑A‑629 and II‑1679, paras 19 and 21; T-68/97 Neumann and Neumann-Schölles v Commission [1999] ECR-SC I‑A‑193 and II‑1005, para. 58; T‑49/97 TAT European Airlines v Commission [2000] ECR II‑51, paras 30 to 36; T-159/98 Torre and Others v Commission [2001] ECR-SC I‑A‑83 and II‑395, para. 28; T-281/03 Liakoura v Council [2004] ECR-SC I‑A‑61 and II‑249, paras 36 to 38; T-272/03 Fernández-Gómez v Commission [2005] ECR-SC I‑A‑229 and II‑1049, paras 36 and 42 to 44

F-28/08 Pouzol v Court of Auditors [2008] ECR-SC I‑A‑1‑0000 and II‑A‑1‑0000, paras 45 to 50
ORDER OF THE EUROPEAN UNION CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL

(First Chamber)

10 September 2014

Breige Martin

v

European Police Office (Europol)

‛Civil service — Procedure — Taxation of costs’

Application:

for taxation of recoverable costs, brought under Article 92 of the Rules of Procedure by Ms Martin following the judgment in Martin v Europol (F‑38/09, EU:F:2010:64).

Held:

The total amount of costs to be reimbursed by the European Police Office to Ms Martin is fixed at EUR 1 343.18, plus default interest from the date of service of the present order to the date of payment, at the rate set by the European Central Bank for its principal refinancing operations applicable during the above period, increased by two points.

Summary

Judicial proceedings — Costs — Taxation — Recoverable costs — Elements to be taken into consideration — Agreement on fees concluded between a party and his lawyer — Not included

(Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal, Art. 91(b))

The Union judicature is not empowered to tax the fees payable by the parties to their own lawyers, but to determine the amount of those fees which may be recovered from the party ordered to pay the costs. It follows that proof of payment of the costs whose recovery is sought is not necessary for the purpose of taxation by the Tribunal of the recoverable costs.

In ruling on an application for taxation of costs, the Union judicature is not obliged to take account of any agreement in relation to fees concluded between the party concerned and his agents or advisers.

Consequently, the fact that it was decided, under an agreement between the applicant and her lawyers, that she would not pay them any fee does not affect the applicant’s right to recover the costs incurred in the main proceedings.

(see paras 14, 19, 20)

See:

orders in Leeuwarder Papierwarenfabriek v Commission, 318/82, EU:C:1985:468, para. 2; C.A.S. v Commission, C‑204/07 P-DEP, EU:C:2009:526, para. 13; and Kronofrance v Germany and Others, C‑75/05 P-DEP, EU:C:2013:458, para. 30
ORDER OF THE CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL

(Second Chamber)

20 June 2011

Case F-67/10

Luigi Marcuccio

v

European Commission

(Civil service — Officials — Action for damages relating to taxation of costs — Inadmissibility)

Application: brought under Article 270 TFEU, applicable to the EAEC Treaty pursuant to Article 106a thereof, in which Mr Marcuccio seeks, in particular, an order that the Commission pay compensation for the harm allegedly suffered as a result of its refusal to reimburse him the recoverable costs purportedly incurred in the case which led to the Tribunal’s judgment of 4 November 2008 in Case F-41/06 Marcuccio v Commission, on appeal before the General Court of the European Union, Case T-20/09 P.

Held: The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible. Mr Marcuccio is ordered to pay all the costs.

Summary

Procedure — Costs — Taxation — Subject-matter

(Art. 270 TFEU; Staff Regulations, Art. 91; Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal, Art. 92(1))

European Union civil service law provides for a special procedure for the taxation of costs where the parties disagree on the amount and nature of the recoverable costs following a decision by which the Civil Service Tribunal brought proceedings to an end and made an order as to the costs. Thus, under the terms of Article 92(1) of its Rules of Procedure, if there is a dispute concerning the amount and nature of the costs to be recovered, the Civil Service Tribunal, on application by the party concerned and after hearing the opposite party, gives its decision by way of reasoned order.

Furthermore, the special procedure, laid down in Article 92(1) of the Rules of Procedure, concerning the taxation of costs, excludes any claim for the same sums, or sums expended for the same purposes, in connection with proceedings alleging non-contractual liability of the Union. Thus an applicant may not bring an application, on the basis of Article 270 TFEU and Article 91 of the Staff Regulations, which has, in reality, the same subject-matter as an application for taxation of costs.

(see paras 20, 21)

See:

16 July 2009, C-440/07 P Commission v Schneider Electric

11 July 2007, T-351/03 Schneider Electric v Commission, para. 297, partly annulled on appeal by the abovementioned judgment of the Court of Justice

10 November 2009, F-70/07 Marcuccio v Commission, para. 17
ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE FIRST CHAMBER

OF THE CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL

8 February 2011

Case F-60/10

Fulvia Chiavegato

v

European Commission

(Amicable settlement — Removal from the register)

Application: brought under Article 270 TFEU, applicable to the EAEC Treaty pursuant to Article 106a thereof, in which Ms Chiavegato seeks annulment of the Commission’s decision of 13 November 2009 not to include her in the list of officials promoted to grade AST 6 under the 2009 promotion procedure.

Held: Case F-60/10 Chiavegato v Commission is removed from the register of the Tribunal. The parties are to bear the costs as agreed between them.

Summary

Officials — Actions — Amicable settlement of the dispute before the Civil Service Tribunal — Removal from the register

(Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal, Art. 69)