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

(Third Chamber)

30 April 2015

Hayet Maraoud

v

European External Action Service (EEAS)

‛Civil service — Staff of the EEAS — Member of the contract staff — Mission in a third country — Workplace accident — Allowance for living conditions — Days of leave not taken — Reimbursement of healthcare — 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 Ms Maraoud essentially seeks an order that the European External Action Service (EEAS) pay her various allowances which she considers due to her under the Staff Regulations, and compensate for harm largely resulting from a workplace accident and the non-renewal of her contract.

Held

:

The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible. Ms Maraoud is to bear her own costs and is ordered to pay the costs incurred by the European External Action Service.

Summary

Actions brought by officials — Prior administrative complaint — None — Inadmissibility (Staff Regulations, Arts 90(2) and 91(1) and (2)) Actions brought by officials — Prior administrative complaint — Definition — Classification for the courts to assess (Staff Regulations, Art. 90)
The application of new general implementing provisions for Articles 11 and 12 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations concerning the transfer to the EU pension scheme of pension rights acquired under another pension scheme, applied for before those provisions were adopted but effected after their entry into force, is not contrary to Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations.

In that 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 legislation, 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.

First of all, Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations does not preclude the immediate application of the new general implementing provisions.

Secondly, neither the communication, to an official or other staff member 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 the additional pensionable years to be credited, let alone the mere submission of such an application, alters the legal position of that person or produces binding legal effects. Consequently, the official or other staff member did not have acquired rights capable of being infringed by the application of the new provisions.

Furthermore, the right of an official or other staff member to have additional pensionable years credited is not fully constituted until the capital representing his rights acquired under another scheme has been transferred to the EU pension scheme.

In addition, individuals may not rely on the principle of protection of legitimate expectations to challenge the application of a new regulatory provision, particularly in an area where the legislature has a broad discretion.

(see paras 25-28, 30, 36)

See:

Judgment of 13 October 2015, Commission v Verile and Gjergji, T‑104/14 P, EU:T:2015:776, paras 151 to 154 and 170 and the case-law cited therein
ORDER OF THE EUROPEAN UNION CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL

(First Chamber)

28 April 2016

José Manuel Silva Rodriguez

v

European Commission

‛Civil service — Officials — Pension — Calculation of pension rights — Management bonus — Article 81 of the Rules of Procedure’

Application:

under Article 270 TFEU, applicable to the EAEC Treaty pursuant to Article 106a thereof, in which Mr José Manuel Silva Rodriguez requests the Tribunal, first, to declare inapplicable in the present case an internal directive of the European Commission (conclusions of the Heads of Administration No 240/05 of 16 June 2005) concerning, in essence, the advancement in step provided for since 1 May 2004 for heads of unit, directors and directors-general, and to annul the Commission’s decision of 29 October 2014 determining his retirement pension rights, and, second, to order the Commission to pay the retirement pension to which he considers he is entitled, subject to deduction of the pension actually paid, together with statutory interest.

Held:

The action brought by Mr José Manuel Silva Rodriguez is dismissed as in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded. Mr Silva Rodriguez is to bear his own costs and is ordered to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.

Summary

Actions brought by officials — Pleas in law — Plea alleging an infringement of the principle of equal treatment — Reliance on alleged discrimination on account of an advantage unlawfully conferred on other officials — Invalid plea in law

(Staff Regulations, Art. 91)

The principle of equal treatment must be reconciled with the principle of legality and thus a person may not rely, in support of his claim, on an unlawful act committed in favour of a third party. Consequently, a plea alleging an infringement of the principle of equal treatment in relation to unlawful advantage conferred on other officials is invalid.

(see para. 38)

See:

Judgments of 4 July 1985 in Williams v Court of Auditors, 134/84, EU:C:1985:297, para. 14, and 2 June 1994 in de Compte v Parliament, C‑326/91 P, EU:C:1994:218, paras 51 and 52

Judgments of 1 July 2010 in Časta v Commission, F‑40/09, EU:F:2010:74, para. 88, and 21 January 2014 in Van Asbroeck v Parliament, F‑102/12, EU:F:2014:4, paras 37 and 38
ORDER OF THE EUROPEAN UNION

CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL

(First Chamber)

13 July 2016

Sergio Siragusa

v

Council of the European Union

‛Civil service — Officials — Leaving the service — Official’s request to be granted retirement — Amendment of the provisions of the Staff Regulations after the request — Alleged withdrawal of an earlier decision’

Application:

under Article 270 TFEU, applicable to the EAEC Treaty pursuant to Article 106a thereof, in which Mr Sergio Siragusa seeks, first, the annulment of the decision of the Council of the European Union of 12 November 2014 withdrawing the earlier decision of the Council approving his request of 11 July 2013 for early retirement and, secondly, damages in respect of the material and non-material harm allegedly suffered.

Held:

The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible. Mr Sergio Siragusa is to bear his own costs and is ordered to pay the costs incurred by the Council of the European Union. The European Parliament is to bear its own costs.

Summary

Actions brought by officials — Act adversely affecting an official — Concept — Absence of a definitive reply to a request — Implied rejection (Staff Regulations, Arts 90 and 91) Actions brought by officials — Prior administrative complaint — Implied rejection of a request not challenged within the prescribed time limit — Subsequent express decision — Confirmatory measure (Staff Regulations, Arts 90 and 91)
ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE THIRD CHAMBER OF THE EUROPEAN UNION CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL

12 November 2015 ( * )

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

In Case F‑105/15,

ACTION brought under Article 270 TFEU,

FM, former member of the contract staff of the European Police College, residing in Basingstoke (United Kingdom),

FO, former member of the contract staff of the European Police College, residing in Tadley (United Kingdom),

represented by L. Levi and A. Blot, lawyers,

applicants,

v

European Police College (CEPOL), represented by F. Bánfi and R. Woldhuis, acting as Agents, assisted by B. Wägenbaur, lawyer,

defendant,

THE PRESIDENT OF THE THIRD CHAMBER OF THE CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL

makes the following

Order

1 By application lodged at the Tribunal Registry on 20 July 2015, FM and FO have sought, in essence: — the annulment of CEPOL’s decision of 22 December 2014 by which it claimed to have accepted their purported resignation; — plus, 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.

2 In Case F‑41/15 DISS I, in which FM and FO were also applicants and in which the Tribunal applied Article 90(1) of the Rules of Procedure by instructing the Judge-Rapporteur to seek an amicable settlement of the dispute, the applicants and defendant informed the Tribunal, by letters of 9 and 6 October 2015 respectively, supplemented by a letter from the applicants dated 30 October 2015, that they accepted the terms of the proposal for an amicable settlement made by the Judge-Rapporteur, at the same time indicating that the settlement was a comprehensive agreement which also included the amicable settlement of the dispute which gave rise to the present action brought by FM and FO.

3 Having regard to the foregoing, it is necessary, in accordance with Article 91(1) of the Rules of Procedure, to record the agreement between the parties on the amicable settlement concluded on the initiative of the Tribunal in Case F‑41/15 DISS I, which has been extended to cover the present case. Consequently, the present case must also be removed from the register of the Tribunal.

4 Under Article 91(3) of the Rules of Procedure, where there is an agreement between the parties as to costs, the decision made follows that agreement. The costs are therefore to be borne by each of the parties in accordance with the terms of their agreement.

On those grounds, THE PRESIDENT OF THE THIRD CHAMBER OF THE CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL hereby orders:

1. Case F‑105/15 shall be removed from the register of the Tribunal.

2. CEPOL shall bear its own costs and pay the costs incurred by FM and FO, in accordance with the terms of the agreement concluded between them.

Luxembourg, 12 November 2015.

W. Hakenberg Registrar S. Van Raepenbusch President

( * ) Language of the case: English.
ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE THIRD CHAMBER OF THE EUROPEAN UNION CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL

( *1 )

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

In Case F‑6/15,

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

FF, former member of the temporary staff of the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), residing in Brussels (Belgium), represented by E. Asenov, lawyer,

applicant,

v

European Aviation Safety Agency, represented by F. Manuhutu and A. Haug, acting as Agents, and by D. Waelbroeck and A. Duron, lawyers,

defendant,

THE PRESIDENT OF THE THIRD CHAMBER OF THE CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL

makes the following

Order

1 By application received at the Registry of the Civil Service Tribunal on 21 January 2015, FF seeks annulment of the decision of the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) terminating his fixed term employment contract before the date fixed in that contract and compensation for the material and non-material damage which he claims to have suffered.

2 By letter of 3 June 2016, the Judge-Rapporteur invited the parties to an informal meeting, which was held on 20 June 2016. During that meeting, the parties reached a final agreement regarding the terms of an amicable settlement of the dispute. That agreement also concerns the costs. The applicant has withdrawn his action and the EASA has agreed to that withdrawal.

3 It is therefore necessary, pursuant to Article 91 of the Rules of Procedure of the Tribunal, to record the agreement between the parties and to remove the present case from the register of the Tribunal.

4 Under Article 91(3) of the Rules of Procedure, where there is an agreement between the parties as to costs, a decision is to be made in accordance with the terms of that agreement. Accordingly, the costs are to be borne by the parties in accordance with the terms of their agreement.

On those grounds, THE PRESIDENT OF THE THIRD CHAMBER OF THE CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL hereby orders:

1. Case F‑6/15 is removed from the register of the Tribunal following the agreement reached between FF and the European Aviation Safety Agency.

2. FF and the European Aviation Safety Agency are to bear the costs in accordance with the terms of their agreement.

Luxembourg, .

W. Hakenberg Registrar S. Van Raepenbusch President

( *1 ) Language of the case: English.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 82/57

Action brought on 27 February 2007 — Caló v Commission

(Case F-14/07)

(2007/C 82/120)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Giuseppe Caló (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and E. Marchal, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

— annul the decision to dismiss the applicant's candidature for the post of Director of the ‘Business Statistics ’Directorate of the Statistics Office of the European Communities;

— annul the decision to appoint Mr. X to that post;

— order the defendant to pay the applicant the token sum of EUR 1 by way of damages for a breach of administration;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant, an official of the defendant, challenged before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities the decision to re-assign him to the duties of Principal Adviser to the DG to which he was assigned (1) and the decision to reject his candidature for the post of Director in the same DG (2), and before the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (3), the decisions, taken in connection with the reorganisation of the DG Eurostat, to reject his candidature for a Director's post. Now he is contesting the decision to reject his candidature for another post as a Director in the same DG and to appoint another candidate to that post.

In support of his action, the applicant relies on, inter alia, the existence of a manifest error of assessment and the infringement of: (i) Articles 7, 29 and 45 of the Staff Regulations; (ii) the Commission rules on the appraisal, selection and appointment of officials in higher-management posts as defined in a Communication of 22 December 2000; (iii) the rules on the appraisal of higher-management staff of Grades A1 and A2, as defined in a Communication of 10 March 2004; (iv) the vacancy notice COM/2006/164.

(1) Case T-118/04 (OJ C 118 of 30.4.2004, p. 47).

(2) Case T-134/04 (OJ C 146 of 29.5.2004, p. 6).

(3) Case F-79/06 (OJ C 237 of 30.9.2006, p. 17).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 22/56

Action brought on 15 October 2007 — Bart Nijs v European Court of Auditors

(Case F-108/07)

(2008/C 22/108)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant(s): Bart Nijs (Bereldange, Luxembourg) (represented by: F. Rollinger, lawyer)

Defendant: European Court of Auditors

Form of order sought

— annul the decision of the European Court of Auditors to renew the mandate of the Secretary General of the Court of Auditors for a further period of six years from 1 July 2007

— in the alternative, annul the two measures allegedly constituting ‘decisions of the appointing authority’ of 8 December 2006 implementing the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 3 October 2006 in Case T-171/05, and of 12 July 2007, rejecting the applicant's complaint of 12 March 2007

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of his action, the applicant relies in particular on the following facts: (i) the Secretary General of the Court of Auditors acted unlawfully; rather than referring the matter to the Anti-Fraud Office, he expressly refused to take measures or to examine the question when he had been informed, with documentary evidence, of the existence of a fraud to the detriment of the invalidity pensions system; (ii) an official exercised his powers in an unlawful manner; (iii) promotion decisions and their dates were repeatedly not published; (iv) the staff committee elections of 2004 and 2006 were unlawful for a number of reasons; (v) there were many instances of misuse of the promotion procedure, of usurpation of the power to appoint allowed to a head of unit, and of personal interests likely to compromise the independence of the appointing authority in nearly all its decisions; (vi) the ‘decisions of the appointing authority’ emanated from the personal interests of all the applicant's hierarchical superiors, from the concealment of the call to a colleague to exercise superior functions on an interim basis, and from failure to refer the matter to the Anti-Fraud Office; (vii) the appointing authority based the contested decisions on the same series of manifest errors as the intial decisions, which they confirm, relying on a judgment that does not have the force of res judicata and without refuting any of the applicant's arguments; (viii) the committees also involved in the assessment and promotion procedure were not informed of the compromised independence of the applicant's hierarchical superiors.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 223/21

Action brought on 3 July 2007 — Stefan Meierhofer v Commission

(Case F-74/07)

(2007/C 223/37)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Stefan Meierhofer (Munich, Germany) (represented by: H.-G. Schiessl, lawyer)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

— Annulment of the defendant's decision of 10 May 2007 concerning the applicant;

— Annulment of the defendant's appeal decision of 19 June 2007;

— Order the defendant to reassess in the light of the current assessment criteria the oral examination taken by the applicant on 29 March 2007;

— Order the defendant to take a new decision on the applicant's inclusion on the reserve list for recruitment competition AD/26/05 in the light of the new examination results;

— Order the defendant to give reasons for is new decisions;

— Order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant participated in EU recruitment competition AD/26/05 (AD5 officials). On completion of the examination the applicant was notified by the examination board that he had not been placed on the reserve list as he had not obtained the mark required.

The applicant claims that insufficient reasons were given for the Commission's decision not to place him on the reserve list and claims that procedural errors occurred during the oral examination.
—

Annul in part the decision of the appointing authority of 12 July 2007 to the extent that it dismisses the application for benefits brought by the applicant in terms of his complaint of 19 March 2007, and to the extent that it rejects the principle of default interest calculated, from 29 April 2003 on benefits which might be awarded to the applicant under Article 73 of the Staff Regulations;
—

order the defendant to conduct an investigation for the purpose of establishing the events of 5 May 2003 when the head ad interim of administration of the EC delegation in Angola drove the applicant's car from the parking lot outside his accommodation to a location approximately four kilometres away, the events of 6 September 2001, and whether there is any link between those events, and to notify the applicant without delay of the results of the investigation, to display in a number of suitable and visible locations notices containing in extract form the findings of the investigation and to ensure access to those findings; in the alternative, order the defendant to pay to the applicant, by way of compensation for the now irreversible harm resulting from the decision rejecting the request of 1 September 2006, the sum of EUR 100 000, or such other greater or lesser sum as the Tribunal may deem to be fair and equitable, and, with regard to the harm which will occur after the date on which this present application is made, the sum of EUR 20, or such other greater or lesser sum as the Tribunal may deem to be fair and equitable, for each day from the date following that on which this present application is made to the date on which, on conclusion of the investigation, the applicant will be notified and the findings given adequate publicity;
—

Annul the decision of 17 April 2007 inasmuch as does not award the applicant any additional priority points for the promotion year 2003
—

In the further alternative, annul the defendant's decision of 10 May 2007, and its decision of 2 October 2007 rejecting the complaint and order the defendant to fix a new date, with adequate preparation time, for the applicant to take the oral test and to asses the possibility of his being placed on the reserve list on the basis of appropriate criteria;
—

Order the defendant to pay compensation for the pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage suffered by the applicant, provisionally and fairly estimated at EUR 170 900 (with the addition of default interest to be calculated at the rates set by the European Central Bank for main refinancing transactions, plus two points, from 1 August 2006);
—

Annulment of the decision by which the European Parliament's Director of Personnel considered that the applicant did not suffer from permanent and total disability making it impossible for her to perform her duties, and annulment of the opinion given by the Invalidity Committee on 27 June 2007;
—

Annul the decision of the selection board of the European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) of 19 November 2007 concerning the result of the competition ‘EPSO/AD/56/06 Administrators (AD5) of Hungarian citizenship’;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 171/50

Action brought on 28 February 2008 — Nanopoulos v Commission

(Case F-30/08)

(2008/C 171/100)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: Photius Nanopoulos (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: V. Christianos, lawyer)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

An order against the Commission to pay to the applicant a sum to compensate him for the damage suffered as a result of breach of his fundamental rights to the detriment of his honour and his reputation.

Form of order sought

— Order the Commission to pay to the applicant, by way of compensation for non-material damage suffered, the sum of EUR 850 000, which includes compensation for the detriment to his health;
—

Annul the decision of 4 October 2007 by which the defendant informed the applicant that there was no possibility of offering her a permanent post, the decision of 29 April 2008 rejecting the complaint against the earlier decision and the decision of 12 June 2008, which follows on from that of 4 October 2007;