ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
ORDER OF THE CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL

(Third Chamber)

10 June 2011

Case F-56/10

André Hecq

v

European Commission

(Civil service — Officials — Social security — 100% reimbursement of medical expenses — Implied rejection decision — Premature complaint — Inadmissibility)

Application: brought under Article 270 TFEU, applicable to the EAEC Treaty pursuant to Article 106a thereof, in which Mr Hecq seeks annulment of the Commission’s decision of 20 October 2009 rejecting his request of 25 September 2009 for 100% reimbursement of the cost of medicines.

Held: The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible. Mr Hecq is to bear all the costs.

Summary

1. Officials — Actions — Act adversely affecting an official — Account drawn up by the Joint Sickness Insurance Scheme on the basis of Article 72 of the Staff Regulations — Not included

(Staff Regulations, Arts 90 and 91)

2. Officials — Actions — Prior administrative complaint — Complaint lodged before request was rejected — Inadmissibility

(Staff Regulations, Art. 90(1))

1. An action seeking annulment of the refusal to grant an official additional reimbursement under Article 73(3) of the Staff Regulations and which is expressly directed against an account drawn up by the Joint Sickness Insurance Scheme on the basis of Article 72 of the Staff Regulations must be dismissed as inadmissible, since that account does not contain any act adversely affecting the official adopted on the basis of Article 73(3) of the Staff Regulations.

(see para. 34)

2. A complaint prior to an implied decision rejecting a request, which constitutes the act adversely affecting an official, cannot relate to that act. The action must therefore be declared manifestly inadmissible because of the premature nature of the complaint.

(see paras 37, 38)

See:

1 December 1994, T-79/92 Ditterich v Commission, paras 45 to 47; 15 November 2006, T-115/05 Jiménez Martínez v Commission, para. 33
ORDER OF THE CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL

(First Chamber)

5 July 2011

Case F-38/11

Gianluigi Alari

v

European Parliament

(Civil service – Officials – Promotion – 2009 promotion exercise – Transfer from one institution to another during promotion exercise in which the official would have been promoted in his institution of origin – Institution with competence to decide on promotion of the transferred official)

Application: brought under Article 270 TFEU, applicable to the EAEC Treaty pursuant to Article 106a thereof, in which Mr Alari seeks annulment of the Parliament’s decision not to promote him to grade AD 7 in the 2009 promotion exercise.

Held: The action is dismissed as manifestly lacking any foundation in law. The Parliament is ordered to pay the applicant’s costs and to bear its own costs.

Summary

Officials – Promotion – Consideration of comparative merits – Inter-institutional transfer during the promotion exercise – Competence of the institution of origin to decide on promotion

(Staff Regulations, Art. 45)

In accordance with the requirements of Article 45 of the Staff Regulations, where an official is eligible for promotion in the course of the year during which he is transferred, the appointing authority competent to decide on his promotion is that of the institution of origin.

Article 45 of the Staff Regulations states that promotion is effected after consideration of the comparative merits of the officials eligible for promotion and that, when considering their comparative merits, the appointing authority takes account in particular of the reports on the officials concerned.

In order to decide whether an official should be promoted with retroactive effect to 1 January of the year N (or even, more generally, during year N), the appointing authority of the institution to which he has transferred can only, in practice, compare the past merits of officials, in particular during the year N-1 (and in the light of the assessment reports on the performance of those officials during the years N-1 and earlier). To that end, it is necessary to compare the merits of the officials transferred with those of the officials who were still their colleagues during the year prior to their transfer, and that assessment can only legitimately be conducted by the institution of origin.

(see paras 26, 27, 31)
ORDER OF THE EUROPEAN UNION CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL

(Third Chamber)

25 April 2012

Case F‑108/11

Valentin Oprea

v

European Commission

(Civil service — Open competition — Non-admission to the competition — Pre-litigation procedure — Procedural irregularity — Manifest inadmissibility)

Application: brought under Article 270 TFEU, applicable to the EAEC Treaty by virtue of Article 106a thereof, in which Mr Oprea seeks annulment of the decision of the selection board for open competition EPSO/AD/198/10 not to admit him to that competition for non-compliance with the requirements relating to professional experience.

Held: The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible. The applicant is to pay the costs in their entirety.

Summary

1. Officials — Actions — Prior administrative complaint — Complaint against a decision of a competition selection board — Not necessary — Submission — Point when prescribed period for bringing an action begins to run — Date of notification of the decision on the complaint

(Staff Regulations, Arts 90 and 91)

2. Officials — Actions — Prior administrative complaint — Decision explicitly rejecting the complaint — Definition — Email obviously sent in error and clearly concerning a different situation from the applicant’s — Not included

1. According to Article 91(2) of the Staff Regulations, an action in a staff case is admissible only if the appointing authority has previously had a complaint submitted to it and the complaint has been rejected by an express or implied decision.

However, the Courts of the European Union have stated that the condition in Article 91 of the Staff Regulations refers only to measures which the appointing authority can review, with the result that the legal remedy available regarding decisions of a competition selection board normally consists of a direct application to the Courts of the European Union.

If the person concerned nevertheless chooses to submit an administrative complaint against a decision of a selection board to the administration first, the admissibility of an action brought subsequently against a decision rejecting that complaint will depend on his compliance with all the procedural requirements applicable to the prior complaint. In particular, inasmuch as a complaint is submitted against a decision of a selection board, the prescribed period for bringing an action begins to run, in accordance with Article 91 of the Staff Regulations, from the day on which the decision taken in response to the complaint is notified to the applicant.

(see paras 14-16)

See:

16 March 1978, 7/77 Ritter von Wüllerstorff und Urbair v Commission, para. 9; 14 July 1983, 144/82 Detti v Court of Justice, paras 16 and 17

27 June 1991, T‑156/89 Valverde Mordt v Court of Justice, para. 90; 31 May 2005, T‑294/03 Gibault v Commission, para. 22

23 November 2010, F‑50/08 Bartha v Commission, paras 25 and 26

2. An email obviously sent in error and clearly concerning a situation which was not that of the applicant cannot be considered to be an explicit decision rejecting a complaint.

(see para. 20)
ORDER OF THE EUROPEAN UNION CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL

(Second Chamber)

25 September 2014

Daniele Possanzini

v

European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of the Member States of the European Union (Frontex)

‛Civil service — Procedure — Taxation of costs’

Application:

for taxation of recoverable costs under Article 92 of the Rules of Procedure, brought by the European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of the Member States of the European Union (‘Frontex’ or ‘the Agency’) following the orders in Possanzini v Frontex (F‑61/11 R, EU:F:2011:183) and Possanzini v Frontex (F‑61/11, EU:F:2012:146).

Held:

The amount of costs recoverable by the European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of the Member States of the European Union from Mr Possanzini in respect of Cases F‑61/11 Possanzini v Frontex and F‑61/11 R Possanzini v Frontex is EUR 8 978.28. The parties are to bear their own costs incurred in the present taxation of costs proceedings.

Summary

Judicial proceedings — Costs — Taxation — Recoverable costs — Expenses necessarily incurred by the parties — Concept — Fees paid by an institution to its lawyer — Included (Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 19, first para., and Annex I, Art. 7(1); Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal, Art. 91(b)) Judicial proceedings — Costs — Taxation — Recoverable costs — Expenses necessarily incurred by the parties — Concept — Travel expenses incurred by an institution’s agent in order to meet a lawyer assisting him at the lawyer’s residence — Included — Conditions (Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal, Art. 91(b)) Judicial proceedings — Costs — Taxation — Recoverable costs — Elements to be taken into consideration — Expenses necessarily incurred in relation to taxation proceedings — Included (Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal, Art. 91(b))
ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE SECOND CHAMBER OF THE EUROPEAN UNION CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL

20 June 2012 ( )

(Amicable settlement of the proceedings – Article 69(1) of the Rules of Procedure – Agreement between the parties at the initiative of the Tribunal – Removal from the register)

In Case F-64/11,

ACTION brought under Article 270 TFEU, applicable to the EAEC Treaty pursuant to Article 106a thereof,

Monica Westeren, member of the temporary staff of the European Commission, residing in Brussels (Belgium), represented by S. Crosby and S. Santoro, lawyers,

applicant,

v

European Commission, represented initially by J. Currall and P. Pecho, and subsequently by J. Currall, acting as Agents,

defendant,

THE PRESIDENT OF THE SECOND CHAMBER OF THE CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL

makes the following

Order

1 By application lodged at the Tribunal Registry on 17 June 2011, the applicant seeks annulment of the Commission decision of 4 March 2011, by which the Commission rejected the applicant’s complaint of 12 November 2010 against the Commission decision of 5 October 2010, and compensation for damage which she claims to have suffered as a result of the adoption of that decision.

2 By letter of 14 March 2010, the Judge-Rapporteur, authorised to do so by the Tribunal, put the terms of a possible amicable settlement of the proceedings to the parties. The applicant and the Commission indicated their agreement to the amicable settlement thus proposed in their letters received at the Tribunal Registry on 20 March and 29 March 2012 respectively. By letter received at the Registry on 24 April 2012, the applicant informed the Tribunal of her agreement to the amount of costs to be borne by the defendant and proposed by the latter in its letter of 29 March 2012.

3 Accordingly, the agreement of the parties on the amicable settlement proposed by the Tribunal should be recorded and the present case removed from the register of the Tribunal pursuant to Article 69 of the Rules of Procedure of the Tribunal.

4 Under Article 69(3) of the Rules of Procedure, where there is an agreement between the parties as to costs, a decision as to costs is to be given in accordance with the agreement. The costs shall therefore be borne by the parties in accordance with the terms of their agreement.

On those grounds,

THE PRESIDENT OF THE SECOND CHAMBER OF THE CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL

hereby orders:

1. Case F-64/11 Westeren v Commission shall be removed from the register of the Tribunal.

2. The parties shall bear the costs in accordance with the agreement concluded between them.

Luxembourg, 20 June 2012.

W. Hakenberg M. I. Rofes i Pujol
ORDER OF THE EUROPEAN UNION CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL

(First Chamber)

7 November 2013

CA

v

European Commission

‛Civil service — Officials — Application initiating proceedings — Formal requirements — Statement of the pleas made — Action manifestly inadmissible’

Application:

under Article 270 TFEU, applicable to the EAEC Treaty pursuant to Article 106a thereof, in which CA seeks annulment of her appraisal reports for the year 2010, annulment of the European Commission decision awarding her two promotion points for that period, a further examination of her appraisal, awarding the necessary points to promote her with retroactive effect from 1 January 2011 and an order that the Commission pay the sum of EUR 20 000.

Held:

The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible. CA is to bear her own costs and is ordered to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.

Summary

Judicial proceedings — Application initiating proceedings — Formal requirements — Clear and precise statement of the pleas in law relied on

(Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 21, first para., and Annex I, Art. 7(3); Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal, Art. 35(1)(e))

Under Article 35(1)(e) of the Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal, the application must contain the pleas and the factual and legal arguments on which it is based. Those pleas in law and arguments must be sufficiently clear and precise to enable the defendant to prepare his defence and the Tribunal to rule on the action, if necessary without any other supporting information. In order to ensure legal certainty and the proper administration of justice, it is necessary, if an action is to be admissible, that the essential points of law and fact relied on be indicated coherently and intelligibly in the application itself. That is a fortiori the case since, under Article 7(3) of Annex I to the Statute of the Court of Justice, the written stage of the proceedings before the Civil Service Tribunal comprises, in principle, only one exchange of written pleadings, unless the Tribunal decides otherwise. That particular feature of the procedure before the Tribunal explains why, in contrast to the provisions in respect of cases before the Court of Justice or the General Court, in accordance with the first paragraph of Article 21 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, the pleas in law and the arguments in the application may not be in summary form.

(see para. 11)

See:

28 April 1993, T‑85/92 De Hoe v Commission, para. 20

4 June 2009, F‑134/07 and F‑8/08 Adjemian and Others v Commission, para. 76; 15 September 2011, F‑102/09 Bennett and Others v OHIM, para. 115; 1 February 2012, F‑123/10 Bancale and Buccheri v Commission, para. 38; 8 March 2012, F‑12/10 Kerstens v Commission, para. 68
ORDER OF THE EUROPEAN UNION CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL

(First Chamber)

7 June 2016

Marco Verile

v

European Commission

‛Civil service — Officials — Pensions — Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations — Transfer of pension rights acquired under a national pension scheme into the EU pension scheme — Proposal concerning additional pensionable years — Action — Annulment — Appeal — Reclassification of claim for annulment of the proposal concerning additional pensionable years — Interpretation of the claim for annulment as a claim seeking annulment of the decision recognising additional pensionable years following the transfer of pension rights — Rejection of the claim — Judgment on appeal which has acquired the force of res judicata — No need to adjudicate’

Application:

under Article 270 TFEU, applicable to the EAEC Treaty pursuant to Article 106a thereof, in which Mr Marco Verile seeks, inter alia, annulment of the decision of the European Commission of 9 December 2011 crediting him with additional pensionable years following the transfer, under Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union in the version applicable at that time (‘the Staff Regulations’) of capital representing the pension rights which he had acquired under his national pension scheme into the European Union pension scheme, and, to the extent necessary, annulment of the decision of the Commission’s appointing authority rejecting his complaint against that decision.

Held:

There is no need to adjudicate in Case F‑108/12, Verile v Commission. Mr Marco Verile and the European Commission are each to bear their own costs.

Summary

Actions for annulment — Action that has become devoid of purpose following a definitive judgment by the EU judicature in another case concerning the same subject-matter, following reclassification of the subject-matter of the action — No need to adjudicate

(Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal, Art. 85(1))

An action for annulment has become devoid of purpose and there is no need to adjudicate on its merits, where the subject-matter of a judgment delivered by the EU judicature in another case has, following reclassification of the subject-matter of the action in that case, become the same as that of the action in the current case, the parties being the same in both cases and the aforementioned judgment having acquired the authority of res judicata and thus become definitive.

Since the principle of res judicata is of fundamental importance for the EU legal order, in order to ensure both stability of the law and legal relations and the sound administration of justice, it is important that judicial decisions which have become definitive after all rights of appeal have been exhausted or after expiry of the time-limits provided for in that connection can no longer be called into question.

(see paras 36-39)

See:

Judgment of 16 March 2006 in Kapferer, C‑234/04, EU:C:2006:178, para. 20 and the case law cited
7

Article 4 of Decision No 61-2006 of the Court of Auditors of 17 October 2006 on the protection of persons working at the Court of Auditors against harassment (‘the decision on the protection of staff against harassment’) provides: ‘Resolving the conflict The principal concern of a victim of any kind of harassment is to ensure that it stops. As a first step everybody should try to resolve the problem amicably. The alleged harasser may not actually be aware of the impact of his/her behaviour. In some cases, it may be sufficient for the alleged victim to explain to him/her clearly that the behaviour in question is undesirable, offensive, and potentially detrimental to the victim’s health or performance at work. However, if it is too difficult for the alleged victim to take this step alone, he/she should know that the support network is available to help him/her find a solution on an informal basis. In any case, everything shall be done to protect the interests of the alleged victim, of the person against whom the complaint is made and of any witnesses. (a) Informal procedure In the first instance the alleged victim may try to resolve the problem amicably. If he/she considers that he/she has been the victim of any kind of harassment or that certain kinds of behaviour are inappropriate, he/she should frankly express his/her disapproval and not be afraid to make it clear that such behaviour is unacceptable. The contact person could be the first person to contact for that purpose. The alleged victim may also contact a line manager, the Welfare Officer, Medical Officer, the Human Resources Division, or a colleague. …’
ORDER OF THE EUROPEAN UNION CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL

(First Chamber)

8 November 2013

Luigi Marcuccio

v

European Commission

‛Civil service — Period allowed for commencing proceedings — Out of time — Action manifestly inadmissible’

Application:

under Article 270 TFEU, applicable to the EAEC Treaty pursuant to Article 106a thereof, in which Mr Marcuccio essentially seeks annulment of the European Commission’s decision to set off a debt owed by the applicant to the Commission against a debt owed by the Commission to the applicant.

Held:

The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible. Mr Marcuccio is to bear his own costs and is ordered to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.

Summary

Actions brought by officials — Time-limits — Point from which time starts to run — Notification — Definition — Decision rejecting his complaint addressed to an official in a language of which he has sufficient knowledge — Included

(Staff Regulations, Art. 91(3))

The notification of a decision rejecting a complaint in a language which is neither the mother tongue of the official nor that in which the complaint was drafted is lawful provided that the person concerned is able to have effective knowledge of it.

(see para. 24)

See:

7 February 2001, T‑118/99 Bonaiti Brighina v Commission, paras 16 to 19
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.

(see paras 23-26, 28)

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

(Third Chamber)

5 November 2014

CY

v

European Central Bank (ECB)

‛Death of the applicant — Reopening of the oral procedure — Legal successor choosing not to resume the proceedings — No need to adjudicate’

Application:

pursuant to Article 36.2 of the Protocol on the Statute of the European System of Central Banks and of the European Central Bank, annexed to the EU Treaty and to the FEU Treaty, in which CY sought, in essence, first, the annulment of the decision of the Executive Board of the European Central Bank (ECB) of 18 December 2012 closing the internal administrative inquiry opened following her complaint of psychological harassment and the annulment of that inquiry and of the inquiry report drawn up once it had finished and, secondly, the grant of EUR 50 000 by way of compensation for the harm allegedly suffered by her, essentially in connection with the conduct of her line manager.

Held:

There is no longer any need to rule on the action. Each party is to bear its own costs.

Summary

* Judicial proceedings — Action rendered devoid of purpose — Death of the applicant and proceedings not resumed by the legal successors — No need to adjudicate

(Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal, Art. 85(1))