ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Staff case summary



Staff case summary

Summary

1. Procedure – Application initiating proceedings – Formal requirements – Contested act not produced

(Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 21; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 44(3) to (6))

2. Officials – Promotion – Conditions – Demonstration of ability to work in a third language

(Staff Regulations, Art. 45(2); Annexes III, Art. 7, and XIII, Art. 11)

1. Where an applicant has failed to annex the contested decision to his application and the Registrar, contrary to Article 44(6) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, has not invited him to rectify that omission, the Community judicature cannot deny him the opportunity to do so by declaring his action inadmissible for failure to comply with the conditions of Article 44(4) of those Rules of Procedure.

(see para. 21)

See:

F-48/06 Avanzata and Others v Commission [2008] ECR-SC I A‑0000 and II‑A‑0000, paras 49 and 50

2. Article 45(2) of the Staff Regulations, in the version resulting from Regulation No 723/2004 amending the Staff Regulations of Officials and the Conditions of employment of other servants, which requires officials to demonstrate, before their first promotion, their ability to work in a third language, applies only from the entry into force of the joint implementing provisions adopted by the institutions by mutual agreement.

Since the legislature has, in any event, under Article 11 of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations, precluded its application to promotions that take effect prior to 1 May 2006, Article 45(2) cannot be applied prior to the entry into force of those joint implementing provisions under the terms required by the legislature, that is to say, with a guarantee that it will be uniformly applied in the different institutions, and with a connection between this new requirement under the Staff Regulations and the opportunity for officials to have training in a third language. Thus an institution cannot apply that article of the Staff Regulations according to rules which it alone has laid down.

(see paras 35-38)
Staff case summary



Staff case summary

Summary

Officials – Competitions – Competition based on qualifications and tests – Conditions for admission – Diplomas submitted or professional experience presented

(Staff Regulations, Annex III, Arts 1 and 5)

The selection board in a competition based on qualifications and tests is responsible for determining, case by case, whether the diplomas submitted or the professional experience presented by each candidate correspond to the level required by the Staff Regulations and the notice of competition. Although bound by the wording of the notice of competition as published, the selection board enjoys a broad discretion in that regard and the Community judicature must confine itself to ascertaining whether the exercise of that discretion was vitiated by a manifest error.

(see paras 34-35)

See:

T-244/97 Mertens v Commission [1999] ECR-SC I‑A‑23 and II‑91, para. 44; T-139/00 Bal v Commission [2002] ECR-SC I‑A‑33 and II‑139, para. 35; T-332/01 Pujals Gomis v Commission [2002] ECR‑SC I‑A‑233 and II‑1155, paras 39 to 41; T-25/03 De Stefano v Commission [2005] ECR-SC I‑A‑125 and II‑573, para. 34

F-12/05 Tas v Commission [2006] ECR-SC I‑A‑1‑79 and II‑A‑1‑285, paras 39 and 43
Staff case summary



Staff case summary

Summary

1. Officials – Actions – Prior administrative complaint – Time-limits – Point from which time starts to run

(Staff Regulations, Art. 90(2))

2. Officials – Pensions – Acquisition of pension rights

(Staff Regulations, Art. 50)

1. For a decision to be duly notified, within the meaning of the Staff Regulations, it must be communicated to the addressee and the addressee must be able to have effective knowledge of its content.

The onus is on an institution relying on a breach of the time-limit provided for in Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations, according to which complaints must be lodged within three months starting ‘on the date of notification of the decision to the person concerned, but in no case later than the date on which the latter received such notification, if the measure affects a specified person’, to provide evidence of the date on which that time-limit started to run.

If evidence that the addressee of a decision has had effective knowledge thereof cannot be obtained simply from circumstantial factors, circumstances other than formal notification of the decision, such as an email from the addressee from which it is clear that he had had effective knowledge of the decision, may constitute such evidence.

(see paras 41-44)

See:

5/76 Jänsch v Commission [1976] ECR 1027, para. 10; 108/79 Belfiore v Commission [1980] ECR 1769, para. 7

T-50/92 Fiorani v Parliament [1993] ECR II‑555, para. 16; T-196/95 H v Commission [1997] ECR-SC I‑A‑133 and II‑403, paras 32 to 35; T-254/01 Di Pietro v Court of Auditors [2002] ECR-SC I‑A‑177 and II‑929, paras 25 to 27

F-13/07 L v EMEA [2007] ECR-SC I‑A‑1‑105 and II‑A‑1‑585, paras 29 to 32; F‑71/06 Lebedef-Caponi v Commission [2007] ECR-SC I‑A‑1‑115 and II‑A‑1‑629, para. 34

2. It is clear from the wording of the final paragraph of Article 50 of the Staff Regulations that an official in a grade A 1 or A 2 post who has been removed from that post in the interest of the service is entitled to a pension without application of the reduction provided for in Article 9 of Annex VIII to the new Staff Regulations, on condition that, at the end of the period during which entitlement to the allowance referred to in Article 50 arises, the official has attained the age of 55 years.

It is particularly necessary to interpret the final paragraph of Article 50 literally because, first, the provision concerned is by way of a derogation from the general rules for calculating a retirement pension and must therefore be interpreted strictly, and, second, provisions providing entitlement to financial benefits must be interpreted strictly.

(see paras 62, 64-65)

See:

T-221/02 Lebedef and Others v Commission [2003] ECR-SC I‑A‑211 and II‑1037, para. 38 and the case-law cited therein; T-11/02 Pappas v Commission [2004] ECR-SC I‑A‑381 and II‑1773, para. 53

F‑10/06 André v Commission [2006] ECR-SC I‑A‑1‑183 and II‑A‑1‑755, paras 34 to 36
Although the Staff Regulations do not use the term ‘reassignment’, decisions to reassign are subject, like transfers, as regards the protection of the rights and legitimate interests of the officials concerned, to the rules of Article 7(1) of the Staff Regulations.

The institutions have a wide discretion in the organisation of their departments according to the tasks conferred on them and in the assignment, in view of those tasks, of staff who are made available to them, on condition, however, that that assignment is carried out in the interest of the service and with respect for equivalence between grade and post, the perception of the person concerned being irrelevant in that respect.

Having regard to the extent of the institutions’ discretion in evaluating the interests of the service, the review undertaken by the Tribunal of whether the condition regarding the interests of the service has been respected must be confined to the question whether the appointing authority remained within reasonable limits and did not use its discretion in a manifestly wrong way.

Moreover, while it is true that the administration has every interest in assigning officials in the light of their abilities and personal preferences, it cannot be said that officials thereby acquire an entitlement to exercise or to retain specific duties.

(see paras 35-38, 55)

218/80 Kruse v Commission [1981] ECR 2417, para. 7; 19/87 Hecq v Commission [1988] ECR 1681, para. 6

T-76/03 Meister v OHIM [2004] ECR-SC I-A-325 and II-1477, para. 64; T-339/03 Clotuche v Commission [2007] ECR-SC I-A-2-29 and II-A-2-179, paras 35 and 47; T-118/04 and T-134/04 Caló v Commission [2007] ECR-SC I-A-2-37 and II-A-2-253, para. 99

F-119/06 Kerstens v Commission [2008] ECR-SC I-A-1-147 and II-A-1-787, paras 84 and 98, on appeal before the General Court of the European Union, Case T-266/08 P
JUDGMENT OF THE CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL

(Third Chamber)

28 October 2010

Case F-6/09

Soukaïna Fares

v

European Commission

(Civil service — Contract staff — Classification in grade — Account taken of professional experience)

Application: brought under Articles 236 EC and 152 EA, in which Ms Fares, a member of the Commission’s contract staff, essentially seeks annulment of the decision of the contracting authority classifying her at grade 8 of function group III for contract staff, in so far as that decision follows from her contract as a member of the contract staff of 28 March 2008.

Held: The decision of the Commission by which the applicant was classified at grade 8 of function group III for contract staff is annulled, in so far as that decision follows from the applicant’s contract as a member of the contract staff of 28 March 2008. The Commission is ordered to pay all of the costs.

Summary

1. Officials — Contract staff — Recruitment — Classification in grade — Account taken of professional experience — Contracting authority’s discretion — Judicial review — Limits

(Conditions of Employment of Other Servants, Art. 86(1))

2. Officials — Contract staff — Recruitment — Classification in grade — Account taken of professional experience

(Conditions of Employment of Other Servants, Art. 86(1); general implementing provisions of the Commission, Art. 7(3))

1. An institution’s exercise of its wide discretion as regards recognition of professional experience must be in compliance with all the relevant provisions and must be free of any manifest error of assessment. In that context, review by the Union judicature must be confined to ascertaining whether the contracting authority committed an error in law and whether it exercised its discretion in a manifestly incorrect manner.

(see paras 39-40)

2. In order to ascertain whether professional experience previously acquired by a member of the contract staff may be recognised for the purpose of his classification in grade, Article 7(3) of the general implementing provisions relating to the procedures governing the engagement and employment of contract staff at the Commission entails not just verification of the job description of the post previously occupied by the contract staff member, but also, where appropriate, an examination of the specific tasks performed by the staff member in that post, in order to determine the level of skills required for the tasks actually carried out. In other words, while, in practice, it is sufficient, in most cases, to determine on the basis of a job description whether professional experience can be taken into account for the classification of a member of the contract staff, the Commission cannot refuse to examine the actual nature of the tasks previously carried out by the person concerned, where he produces plausible evidence indicating that the tasks he performed in practice did not correspond to the formal job description for his post.

(see para. 63)
JUDGMENT OF THE EUROPEAN UNION CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL

(First Chamber)

5 June 2012

Case F‑84/10

Efstratios Chatzidoukakis

v

European Commission

(Civil service — Officials — Remuneration — Family allowances — Education allowance — Conditions for granting — Deduction of an allowance of like nature paid from other sources)

Application: brought under Article 270 TFEU, applicable to the EAEC Treaty by virtue of Article 106a thereof, in which Mr Chatzidoukakis seeks, in particular, annulment of the Commission’s decision of 26 February 2010 reducing the education allowance granted to him and deducting the overpayment from his pay slips on the basis that his son receives financial assistance from a Member State by way of a grant.

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

Summary

Officials — Remuneration — Family allowances — Education allowance — Conditions for the application of the rule against overlapping referred to in Article 67(2) of the Staff Regulations where allowances of like nature are paid from other sources — Application to the financial benefit for students in Luxembourg — Lawfulness

(Staff Regulations, Art. 67(1)(c) and (2))

Only allowances which are comparable and have the same purpose are ‘of like nature’ for the purposes of the rule against overlapping laid down in Article 67(2) of the Staff Regulations concerning family allowances. The decisive criterion in classifying allowances as of like nature is the aim pursued by the allowances in question.

In that regard, the education allowance referred to in Article 67(1)(c) of the Staff Regulations and the financial benefit in Luxembourg in the form of grants and loans, which is intended to provide students with financial aid to enable them to finance their studies and living expenses while studying, serve similar purposes in that they are intended to contribute to the education costs of the official’s dependent child.

That finding is not invalidated by the fact that the recipients of the two benefits are not the same. The fact that the education allowance is paid to the official and the national benefit is paid to the child, or formally allocated to him, is not decisive for assessing whether those benefits are of like nature within the meaning of Article 67(2) of the Staff Regulations. The fact that the allowance under the Staff Regulations is added to the official’s salary and thus relates to an employment relationship, unlike the Luxembourg financial benefit, which is paid to the child, is also not decisive.

(see paras 29, 31, 32, 37-38)

See:

13 October 1977, 106/76 Gelders-Deboeck v Commission, para 16; 13 October 1977, 14/77 Emer-van den Branden v Commission, para 15; 18 December 2007, C‑135/06 P Weiβenfels v Parliament, para 89

10 May 1990, T‑117/89 Sens v Commission, para 14; 11 June 1996, T‑147/95 Pavan v Parliament, para 41

13 February 2007, F‑62/06 Guarneri v Commission, paras 39, 40 and 42
JUDGMENT OF THE EUROPEAN UNION CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL

(Third Chamber)

12 December 2012

Case F‑77/11

Kris Van Neyghem

v

Council of the European Union

(Civil service — Officials — Promotion — 2007 promotion exercise — Refusal to promote an official — Annulment — Implementing measures — Fresh consideration of comparative merits)

Application: Action brought under Article 270 TFEU, applicable to the EAEC Treaty pursuant to Article 106a thereof, whereby Mr Van Neyghem seeks, in essence, first, annulment of the decision not to promote him to grade 7 of the assistant function group (AST) for the promotion year 2007, adopted by the Council of the European Union on 1 October 2010 following a fresh consideration of comparative merits carried out in order to implement the judgment of the Tribunal of 5 May 2010 in Case F‑53/08 Bouillez and Others v Council (‘the judgment of 5 May 2010’) and, second, compensation for the non-pecuniary and pecuniary harm allegedly thereby sustained.

Held: The action is dismissed. The Council is to bear its own costs and is ordered to pay one quarter of Mr Van Neyghem’s costs. The applicant is to bear three quarters of his own costs.

Summary

Officials — Promotion — Consideration of comparative merits — Administration’s discretion — Judicial review — Limits

(Staff Regulations, Art. 45)

For the purpose of the consideration of comparative merits in the context of a promotion decision provided for in Article 45 of the Staff Regulations, the appointing authority has a wide discretion.

In particular, the administration enjoys a wide discretion as to the respective importance which it ascribes to each of the three criteria provided for in Article 45(1) of the Staff Regulations, the provisions of which do not preclude the possibility of weighting being applied between those criteria.

However, the discretion thus allowed to the appointing authority is circumscribed by the need to carry out that comparative consideration of candidatures with care and impartiality, in the interests of the service and in accordance with the principle of equal treatment. In practice, that consideration must be carried out on a basis of equality, using comparable sources of information and comparable information.

In that regard, review by the Tribunal must be limited to ascertaining whether, regard being had to the factors and reasons that led the administration to its assessment, it remained within unimpeachable limits and did not manifestly misuse its power.

(see paras 38-41)

See:

15 September 2005, T‑132/03 Casini v Commission, para. 52 and the case-law cited

24 March 2011, F‑104/09 Canga Fano v Council, para. 68, under appeal before the General Court of the European Union, Case T‑281/11 P; 28 September 2011, F‑9/10 AC v Council, para. 14
The acts or decisions in respect of which an action for annulment may be brought are limited to those measures which produce binding legal effects such as to affect the interests of the applicant by bringing about a distinct change in his legal position. Where the acts or decisions in question are formulated in several stages, for example in the course of an internal procedure such as that relating to the promotion procedure laid down by general implementing provisions for Article 45 of the Staff Regulations, the only acts which can be challenged are the measures definitively determining the position of the institution at the conclusion of that procedure. By contrast, the intermediary measures whose purpose is to prepare the final decision are not acts adversely affecting an official within the meaning of Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations and can only be challenged incidentally in an action against the acts capable of being annulled.

The setting of promotion thresholds, whether they are indicative or definitive thresholds, constitutes only one of the successive stages of the promotion procedure, which culminates in the publication of the list of officials promoted in the promotion year. It is only at the time of publication of that list that the legal position of the officials eligible for promotion can be affected. It follows that decisions setting promotion thresholds are acts preparatory to the appointing authority’s decision establishing the list of promoted officials.

Nonetheless, while such preparatory acts cannot be subject to a separate action for annulment, their lawfulness may always be disputed in the course of an action directed against the final decision.

Accordingly, the head of claim seeking the annulment of decisions setting promotion thresholds is inadmissible.

(see paras 38-42)

Judgments of 9 March 2000 in Vicente Nuñez v Commission, T‑10/99, EU:T:2000:60, para. 28; 5 March 2003 in Staelen v Parliament, T‑24/01, EU:T:2003:52, para. 32 and 33 and the case-law cited therein; 19 March 2003 in Tsarnavas v Commission, T‑188/01 to T‑190/01, EU:T:2003:77, para. 73 and the case-law cited therein, and 3 May 2007 in Crespinet v Commission, T‑261/04, EU:T:2007:122, para. 42 and the case-law cited therein

Order of 13 December 2006 in Aimi and Others v Commission, F‑47/06, EU:F:2006:134, para. 64
JUDGMENT OF THE EUROPEAN UNION CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL

(First Chamber)

12 December 2013

Giorgio Lebedef

v

European Commission

‛Civil service — Officials — Staff report — 2010 appraisal procedure — Application for annulment of staff report — Application for annulment of number of promotion points awarded’

Application:

under Article 270 TFEU, applicable to the EAEC Treaty pursuant to Article 106a thereof, in which Mr Lebedef seeks annulment of his staff report for the period from 1 January 2010 to 31 December 2010 and, specifically, the level of performance and the number of promotion points awarded as a result.

Held:

The action is dismissed. Mr Lebedef is to bear his own costs and is ordered to pay those incurred by the European Commission.

Summary

Officials — Reports procedure — Staff report — Reporting officers’ discretion — Judicial review — Limits (Staff Regulations, Art. 43) Officials — Disciplinary measures — Penalty — Downgrading — Definition — Reduction in the number of promotion points obtained during successive appraisal and reporting procedures — Included (Staff Regulations, Arts 43 and 86; Annex IX, Art. 9)
JUDGMENT OF THE EUROPEAN UNION CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL

(Third Chamber)

21 May 2014

Victor Navarro

v

European Commission

‛Civil service — Contract staff — Recruitment — Call for expressions of interest EPSO/CAST/02/2010 — Conditions of employment — Minimum qualifications required for employment — Appropriate professional experience — Rejection of the application for employment — Procedure by default’

Application:

under Article 270 TFEU, applicable to the EAEC Treaty by virtue of Article 106a thereof, in which Mr Navarro seeks annulment of the European Commission’s decision of 4 October 2012 refusing to employ him as a member of the contract staff in function group II, together with compensation for loss suffered.

Held:

The action is dismissed. Each party is to bear its own costs.

Summary

Actions brought by officials — Assessment of the legality of a contested measure on the basis of the facts and the law as they stood at the time of the measure’s adoption

(Staff Regulations, Art. 91)

The legality of an individual measure is to be assessed on the basis of the facts and the law as they stood at the time of the measure’s adoption.

(see para. 29)

See:

11 July 2007, T‑58/05 Centeno Mediavilla and Others v Commission, para. 151

29 September 2011, F‑70/05 Mische v Commission, para. 70

JUDGMENT OF THE EUROPEAN UNION CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL

(Third Chamber)

21 May 2014

Victor Navarro

v

European Commission

‛Civil service — Contract staff — Recruitment — Call for expressions of interest EPSO/CAST/02/2010 — Conditions of employment — Minimum qualifications required for employment — Appropriate professional experience — Rejection of the application for employment — Procedure by default’

Application:

under Article 270 TFEU, applicable to the EAEC Treaty by virtue of Article 106a thereof, in which Mr Navarro seeks annulment of the European Commission’s decision of 4 October 2012 refusing to employ him as a member of the contract staff in function group II, together with compensation for loss suffered.

Held:

The action is dismissed. Each party is to bear its own costs.

Summary

Actions brought by officials — Assessment of the legality of a contested measure on the basis of the facts and the law as they stood at the time of the measure’s adoption

(Staff Regulations, Art. 91)

The legality of an individual measure is to be assessed on the basis of the facts and the law as they stood at the time of the measure’s adoption.

(see para. 29)

See:

11 July 2007, T‑58/05 Centeno Mediavilla and Others v Commission, para. 151

29 September 2011, F‑70/05 Mische v Commission, para. 70