ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
31

The first plea in law that the Tribunal identified in the applicant’s pleadings alleges infringement of an internal EASO document entitled ‘EASO Guide to the Assessment of Probationary Staff’ (‘the Guide’), in so far as the applicant’s probationary period was not completed in accordance with the Guide. That plea is divided into seven grounds of complaint. In the first place, the applicant did not complete his probationary period under normal conditions in so far as he had three different tutors. In the second place, he was not continuously supervised for the duration of his probationary period. In the third place, the first probationary report, of 22 November 2012, was not followed by a discussion, contrary to the provision in section C(10) of the Guide. In the fourth place, the applicant received no advice or practical support during the period from 22 November 2012 to 15 February 2013, the date on which his second probationary report was delivered to him. In the fifth place, he was not provided with frequent feedback on how to carry out his duties, in breach of section D(1) of the Guide. In the sixth place, he did not obtain, in breach of section D(2) of the Guide and of his rights of defence, factual examples of complaints about his behaviour that had been addressed to his line management. Finally, in the seventh place, EASO did not deliver to the applicant the final probationary report of 15 February 2013, in breach of his rights of defence.
ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE SECOND CHAMBER OF THE EUROPEAN UNION CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL

24 July 2014

Case F‑7/14

Christina Necheva

v

European Commission

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

Application: under Article 270 TFEU, applicable to the EAEC Treaty pursuant to Article 106a thereof, in which Ms Necheva sought, first, annulment of the European Commission’s decision of 18 July 2013 reducing from three to two years the extension period of her temporary staff contract, as shown in an addendum concluded on 23 November 2011, and, second, compensation of EUR 45 000 in the event that it was impossible to reinstate her for the period of one year.

Held: Case F‑7/14 is removed from the register of the Tribunal as a result of the agreement concluded between Ms Necheva and the European Commission. Ms Necheva and the European Commission are to bear the costs in accordance with the terms of their agreement.

Summary

Actions brought by officials — Amicable settlement of the dispute before the Civil Service Tribunal — Removal from the register

(Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal, Art. 69(1))

(see paras 3-4)
ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE SECOND CHAMBER

OF THE EUROPEAN UNION CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL

27 June 2016

Valéria Anna Gyarmathy

v

European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA)

‛Amicable settlement of the proceedings — Article 91(2) of the Rules of Procedure — Agreement of the parties out of court — Removal from the register’

Application:

under Article 270 TFEU, in which Ms Anna Gyarmathy seeks annulment of several decisions adopted by the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA) concerning a request for assistance in respect of alleged psychological harassment and the decision not to renew her contract as a member of the temporary staff. The applicant also seeks compensation for the material and non-material damage which she claims to have suffered as a result of the contested decisions.

Held:

Case F‑22/14, Gyarmathy v European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction, is removed from the register of the Tribunal following the agreement made between the parties. The parties are to bear the costs according to the terms of their agreement.

Summary

Actions brought by officials — Amicable settlement of the proceedings outside the Civil Service Tribunal — Removal from the register

(Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal, Art. 91(2))

(see paras 18, 20)
ORDER OF THE EUROPEAN UNION CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL

(First Chamber)

30 September 2015

Carlos Nunes

v

European Court of Auditors

‛Civil service — Contract staff — Dispute concerning the terms of employment — Complaint out of time — Failure to comply with the pre-litigation procedure — Manifest inadmissibility’

Application:

under Article 270 TFEU, applicable to the EAEC Treaty pursuant to Article 106a thereof, in which Mr Nunes seeks, first, annulment of the decision of 19 January 2015 by which the European Court of Auditors rejected his complaint of 5 December 2014 seeking the annulment of a decision of 29 April 2009 which he claimed unilaterally amended his remuneration and his legal status as a member of the temporary staff, and, second, an order that the Court of Auditors retrospectively adjust his remuneration as a member of the temporary staff from April 2009.

Held:

The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible. Mr Nunes is to bear his own costs.

Summary

Actions brought by officials — Prior administrative complaint — Time-limits — Matter of public policy — Review by the Court of its own motion

(Staff Regulations, Arts 90 and 91)

The time-limit of three months for lodging a complaint against an act adversely affecting an official, laid down by Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations, is a matter of public policy and not subject to the discretion of the parties or the Court, since it was established in order to ensure that legal positions are clear and certain and that there is legal certainty. It is therefore for the Courts of the European Union to verify, of their own motion, whether that time-limit has been complied with.

A complaint directed against a decision to employ a person as a member of the contract staff which is lodged more than five years after that decision is therefore manifestly out of time. Even if the decision rejecting that complaint were to be regarded as a decision rejecting not a complaint but a request submitted under Article 90(1) of the Staff Regulations, the person concerned would then have, under the provisions of Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations, a period of three months in which to lodge a complaint against that decision rejecting a request under Article 90(1).

(see paras 13, 15, 16)

See:

Order of 7 September 2005 in Krahl v Commission, T‑358/03, EU:T:2005:301, para. 35 and the case-law cited therein
ORDER OF THE EUROPEAN UNION CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL

(First Chamber)

18 July 2016

Constant Dietrich

v

European Parliament

‛Civil service — Member of the contract staff — Early termination of the contract — Expiry date of the notice period — Suspension of the notice period — New expiry date of the notice period — Act not having an adverse effect — Complaint lodged out of time — Objection of inadmissibility — Manifest inadmissibility — Article 83 of the Rules of Procedure’

Application:

under Article 270 TFUE, applicable to the EAEC Treaty pursuant to Article 106a thereof, by which Mr Constant Dietrich seeks, principally, annulment of the decision of the authority empowered to conclude contracts of employment of the European Parliament (‘the AECE’) of 2 February 2015, terminating his contract as a member of the contract staff, annulment of the decision of the AECE of 25 February 2015 setting the new expiry date of his contract, and annulment of the decision rejecting his complaint.

Held:

The action is dismissed as being manifestly inadmissible. Mr Constant Dietrich shall bear his own costs and is ordered to pay the costs incurred by the European Parliament.

Summary

Actions brought by officials — Prior administrative complaint — Date on which complaint made — Receipt by the administration

(Staff Regulations, Art. 90(2))

In order for a complaint to be regarded as having been validly made under Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations, the authority in question must have been in a position to take cognisance of its contents within the prescribed time limit. Consequently, the date to be taken into consideration, for assessing whether a complaint was lodged within the prescribed time limit, is the date when it was received by the institution concerned.

(see para. 26)

See:

Order of 29 June 2011 in Schuerewegen v Parliament, F‑125/10, EU:F:2011:98, paras 22 and 25
37

With those criteria in mind, as regards the question whether, in the present case, the request of 10 December 2014 was submitted within a reasonable period, it should first be observed that the request in fact comprised two distinct, but closely linked, claims: by his first claim, the applicant called on the AACC ‘to confirm that the duties [he] perform[ed] as contract staff in [his] capacity as Head of the Technical Office in Samoa [we]re not of a transitory nature but correspond[ed] to permanent public services duties and, by way of consequence, to recognise that the period of service [he had] formally completed in performance of a contract of employment as contract staff was [since 1st December 2010] and is actually completed in performance of a contract of employment as temporary staff concluded for an indefinite period’ (‘the claim for reclassification of the contract’). By the second claim, on the other hand, the applicant asked the AACC ‘to compensate any damage which may have resulted and could still result from the erroneous classification of [his] contract’ (‘the claim for damages’).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 117/36

Action brought on 22 March 2007 — Bleser v Court of Justice

(Case F-25/07)

(2007/C 117/57)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Thomas Bleser (Nittel, Germany) (represented by: P. Goergen, lawyer)

Defendant: Court of Justice of the European Communities

Form of order sought

— Annulment of the applicant's classification in the grade allocated to him in the decision of 16 March 2006 regarding his appointment;

— Annulment of Articles 2 and 13 in Appendix XIII and of Article 32 of the Staff Regulations which entered into force on 1 May 2004;

— Classification of the applicant in the grade which was published in the notice of competition or in the grade which corresponds to it according to the classifications of the new Staff Regulations (and in the corresponding step according to the provisions which were applicable before 1 May 2004);

— Award of damages in the amount corresponding to the difference in remuneration;

— Award of damages in the amount of EUR 10 000 in respect of the non-material damage suffered;

— Order the Court of Justice to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The action is essentially brought against the provisions of Articles 2 and 13 in Appendix XIII and of Article 32 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communities which entered into force on 1 May 2004.

The applicant submits that his classification should have been carried out under the Staff Regulations which were in force at the time when he sat the selections tests and were more favourable to him. In support of his action, he claims that his classification infringed the principle of equality, the principle of non-discrimination and the prohibition of discrimination based on age.

In addition, the applicant submits that there has been infringement of the general principles of Community law, in particular of the duty to have regard for the welfare of officials and the principle of sound administration, the principle of transparency, the principle of protection of legitimate expectations, the principle of legal certainty, the principle of good faith, the prohibition on reformatio in pejus (prohibition on deterioration) and the principle of the right to a fair hearing.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 22/57

Action brought on 30 October 2007 — Van Beers v Commission

(Case F-126/07)

(2008/C 22/110)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Isabelle Van Beers (Woluwe-St-Etienne, Belgium) (represented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and E. Marchal, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

— Annul the decision of the appointing authority rejecting the applicant's application under the attestation procedure for 2006;

— Declare Article 4(2) of the general implementing provisions (GIP) of Article 45a of the Staff Regulations unlawful, inasmuch as it has the effect either of excluding from consideration the true level of the tasks carried out by a candidate for attestation or of maintaining a distinction between the former grades C* and B* since 30 April 2006;

— Order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant, a Commission official in grade AST 6, lodged an application under the attestation procedure for 2006. On 29 March 2007, the appointing authority definitively confirmed its decision of 22 February 2007, after an appeal by the applicant against that decision, not to admit her application under the attestation procedure for 2006.

In support of her action, the applicant claims, firstly, that there has been a manifest error of assessment.

She submits, furthermore, that Article 4(2) of the GIP of Article 45a of the Staff Regulations is unlawful.

In particular, the applicant alleges breach of the principles of equal treatment, of non-discrimination and of proportionality, breach of the principle of sound administration and the principle that recruited officials are entitled to reasonable career prospects, as well as the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 235/32

Action brought on 6 August 2007 — Dittert v Commission

(Case F-82/07)

(2007/C 235/59)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Daniel Dittert (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: B. Cortese and C. Cortese, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

— annul the decision of the Commission of the European Communities to promote the applicant to grade AD 9, and not AD 10, under the 2006 promotion procedure, as confirmed by that Institution's decision of 23 April 2007, rejecting the applicant's complaint No R/132/07;

— order the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant, an established official at the Commission, having been promoted to the old grade A 7 with effect from 1 April 2002, was on 30 April 2004 eligible for promotion to grade A 6. On 1 May 2004, the Appointing Authority replaced grade A 7 in the applicant's staff file with the new grade A*8, stating the reason for the amendment to be the ‘career reform of 1 May 2004’. Subsequently, grade A*8 was renamed AD 8 with effect from 1 May 2006.

The applicant submits that though the officials promoted in 2004 and those promoted in 2005 or 2006 from the old grade A 7 were all promoted after the entry into force of the amendments to the Staff Regulations, some were appointed to grade A*10/AD 10 while others, including the applicant, were appointed to grade A*9/AD 9. The applicant pleads an infringement of the principles of equal treatment and reasonable career prospects for officials.
—

Annul the decision of the European Parliament of 18 April 2007, PERS-B-AFF-SOCIAL D(2007) 22300 in those parts which relate to the inclusion of the ‘productivity allowance’ in the applicant's gross salary; the recovery, already effected, of the sum of EUR 390 from the applicant's retirement pension; the obligation to recover the sum of EUR 10 036,99 for the period from March 2005 to March 2007; and the monthly reduction of the applicant's pension by EUR 600 for the entire period during which he was paid the allowance in issue of EUR 670, namely between March 2005 and September 2007;
—

Order the Court of Auditors to pay the applicant the sum of EUR 10 000 in respect of non-material harm suffered during and after the disciplinary procedure and in respect of compensation for the material harm consisting in the difference between the salary which he received since the date of the last promotion decisions and that which he would have received had he been promoted at that time;
—

Annul the decision of 11 April 2007 in so far as it awards the applicant a single additional priority point in the 2003 Promotion procedure, making a total of two priority points and a grand total of 21 points and implicitly refusing his promotion in the 2003 Promotion procedure, and order the defendant to pay compensation;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 92/52

Action brought on 19 February 2008 — Aparicio and Others v Commission

(Case F-20/08)

(2008/C 92/107)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Jorge Aparicio and Others (Antiguo Cuscatlan, Salvador) (represented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and E. Marchal, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

The subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the decisions of the European Personnel Selection Office not to include the applicants' names in the list of successful candidates and in the CAST 27/Relex database

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

— annul the decisions of the European Personnel Selection Office not to include the applicants' names in the list of successful candidates and in the CAST 27/Relex database;
—

Annul the decisions of 29 May 2007, 20 June 2007, 28 June 2007 and 6 July 2007, two decisions of 26 July 2007 and the decision of 2 August 2007 relating to the deduction of 32 days of the applicant's leave entitlement for the year 2007;
—

Order the defendant to pay the applicant the sum of EUR 125 000 by way of damages for the material and non-material loss suffered;
—

Annul the decision communicated by e-mail on 17 November 2007, a copy of which was sent on 19 December 2007, in so far as the Appeals Committee rejected the applicant's appeal against the assessment made by his superiors for 2006 in so far as it is based on the assumption that the applicant had abandoned his claims alleging irregularities in the assessment procedure for 2006 and, finally, in so far as it contends that the applicant accepted the criticisms made by his superiors;
—

Annul the decision of the appointing authority not to include the applicant in the list of officials promoted to grade AST 11 for the 2007 promotion exercise, as evidenced by Staff Note No 136/07 of 16 July 2007;
—

Order the Defendant to pay (i) the pension amount corresponding to the application of the annual adjustment for 2007, namely an increase of 2,2 % for the period from 1 July 2007 to 31 December 2007; (ii) the pension amount corresponding to the consequences of applying the annual adjustment for 2007 to the pension amounts which will be paid from January 2009; and (iii) default interest on the pension amounts payable, until full payment, calculated on the basis of the rate set by the European Central Bank for principal refinancing operations, applicable during the relevant period, plus three percentage points;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 272/52

Action brought on 29 August 2008 — Ramaekers-Jørgensen v Commission

(Case F-74/08)

(2008/C 272/101)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Dominique Ramaekers-Jørgensen (Genval, Belgium) (represented by: L. Vogel, lawyer)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

On the one hand, annulment of the decision of the Appointing Authority to calculate the applicant's Community tax by combining the amount of personal remuneration and the survivor's pension, and of the decision rejecting the application for the Community tax on her survivor's pension not to be deducted in advance, prior to payment of that pension, from her remuneration. On the other, a finding that Articles 3 and 4 of Council Regulation No 260/68, as most recently amended by Council Regulation No 2182/2003, are unlawful.

Form of order sought

— Annul the decision adopted by the Appointing Authority on 20 May 2008 rejecting the claim brought on 16 January 2008 seeking annulment in part of the decision of 16 October 2007 insofar as that decision laid down the methods for calculation and payment of the Community tax on the survivor's pension awarded to the applicant;

— insofar as necessary, annul in addition, in part, the decision of 16 October 2007 in as much as it laid down the methods for calculation and payment of the Community tax on the survivor's pension awarded to the applicant;

— by application of Article 241 of the Treaty, find that Articles 3 and 4 of Council Regulation No 260/68, as most recently amended by Council Regulation No 2182/2003, are unlawful since those provisions stipulate that the survivor's pension awarded to an official is to be added to his pay for the purposes of calculation of the Community tax thereon;
—

Annul the decision adopted by the authority responsible for concluding contracts of employment on 18 July 2008 rejecting the complaints presented by the applicants challenging a decision adopted on 23 January 2008 establishing a new calculation of the applicants' salaries in enforcement of three judgments given by the European Union Civil Service Tribunal on their application on 5 July 2007 and challenging also the corrective multiples which were later applied to them, as well as the pay slips sent to the applicants pursuant to the decision of 23 January 2008 for the months of February, March and April 2008;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 6/46

Action brought on 6 November 2008 — Pleijte v Commission

(Case F-91/08)

(2009/C 6/93)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Johanna Gerdina Pleijte (Senningerberg, Luxembourg) (represented by: P. Nelissen Grade, lawyer)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Action for annulment of the decision of the appointing authority not to include the applicant's name on the provisional list of preselected officials in the context of the 2007 certification exercise and to subtract the length of a period of leave on personal grounds from the 10-year period which was taken into account in order to establish her length of service for the purposes of that certification procedure

Form of order sought

— Annul the decision of the appointing authority of 7 August 2008 rejecting the applicant's complaint;

— Annul the appointing authority's decision not to include the applicant's name on the provisional list of preselected officials in the context of the 2007 certification exercise;

— Add the applicant's name to the list of preselected officials in sufficient time to enable her to take part in the training programme provided for by Article 6 of the GIP;

— Amend the methodology in the administrative notice of 8 January 2008 adopted on the basis of Commission Decision C(2007) 5694 of 20 November 2007 on the general provisions for the implementation of Article 45a of the Staff Regulations as regards the part relating to the taking into account of experience within the institutions;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 113/46

Action brought on 6 March 2009 — Lopez Sanchez v Council

(Case F-19/09)

2009/C 113/97

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Carolina Lopez Sanchez (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis, E. Marchal, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the decision not to promote the applicant to grade AST 3 in the 2008 promotion procedure and, so far as necessary, of the decisions to promote less deserving officials to that grade.

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

— annul the decision of the appointing authority not to promote the applicant to grade AST 3 in the 2008 promotion procedure and, so far as necessary, the decisions to promote less deserving officials to that grade;