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

(First Chamber)

8 April 2008

Case F-134/06

Giovanni Bordini

v

Commission of the European Communities

(Civil service – Officials – Pensions – Weighting – Member State of residence – Concept of residence – Concept of principal residence – Documents in support)

Application: brought under Articles 236 EC and 152 EA, in which Mr Bordini seeks, first, annulment of the decision of 25 January 2006 by which the Commission appointing authority refused to apply the weighting for the United Kingdom to his pension, and annulment, in so far as is necessary, of the decision of 18 August 2006 rejecting his complaint lodged on 19 April 2006, and, secondly, an order for the Commission to pay interest – on the basis of a rate two points higher than the rate fixed by the European Central Bank, and applicable during the period concerned, for major refinancing operations – on the amounts payable by virtue of retroactive application of the United Kingdom weighting to the applicant’s pension with effect from 1 April 2004.

Held: The action is dismissed. The Commission is to bear its own costs and to pay half of the costs which the applicant incurred in respect of the informal meeting of 5 June 2007. The applicant is to bear his own costs, save in respect of half of the costs which he incurred in respect of the informal meeting of 5 June 2007.

Summary

Officials – Pensions – Weighting

(Staff Regulations, Art. 82)

The concept of residence within the meaning of Article 82 of the previous version of the Staff Regulations, which provides for the application to pensions of the weighting fixed for the country in which the recipient proves he has established his residence, refers to the place where the former official has actually established his centre of interests, in other words the place in which the person concerned has established, with the intention that it should be of a lasting character, the permanent or habitual centre of his interests and where he is deemed to incur his expenditure. Furthermore, irrespective of the purely quantitative element of the time spent by the person in a particular country, residence implies not only the actual fact of living in a given place, but also the intention of thereby achieving the continuity which stems from a stable way of life and from the course of normal social relations . This concept of residence is peculiar to the Community civil service and does not necessarily coincide with national meanings of the term.

(see paras 69, 86)

See:

T‑124/01 and T‑320/01 Del Vaglio v Commission [2003] ECR-SC I‑A‑157 and II‑767, paras 70 and the case-law cited therein, 71 and the case-law cited therein, and 72; judgment of 12 September 2005 in T-320/04 Dionyssopoulou v Council, not published in the ECR, para. 39; T-416/04 Kontouli v Council [2006] ECR-SC I‑A‑2‑181 and II‑A‑2‑897, para. 71
Staff case summary



Staff case summary

Summary

1. Officials – Promotion – Consideration of comparative merits

(Staff Regulations, Arts 43 and 45)

2. Plea of illegality – Scope – Measures the illegality of which may be pleaded

(Art. 241 EC)

1. The consideration of comparative merits for the purpose of awarding merit points to an official may be conducted only within the directorate-general to which he is assigned, in view of the limited number of merit points available for each directorate-general, and given that each official in a directorate or department who is eligible for promotion is competing with all the other officials in his directorate or department for a limited number of merit points. The directorate-general designated to award merit points is that in which the official has spent the longest period of assignment during the reference year.

(see paras 44-45)

See:

T-289/04 Lantzoni v Court of Justice [2006] ECR-SC I‑A‑2‑39 and II‑A‑2‑171, paras 68 and 69; T-156/05 Lantzoni v Court of Justice [2006] ECR-SC I‑A‑2‑189 and II‑A‑2‑969, paras 52 and 53

2. The scope of a plea of illegality must be confined to what is essential for resolving the dispute. The general measure the illegality of which is pleaded must be applicable, directly or indirectly, to the circumstances which are the subject of the action, and there must be a direct legal connection between the individual decision contested and the general measure in question.

(see para. 61)

See:

21/64 Macchiorlati Dalmas v High Authority [1965] ECR 175, 187; 32/65 Italy v Council and Commission [1966] ECR 389, 409

T-6/92 and T-52/92 Reinarz v Commission [1993] ECR II‑1047, para. 57; T-60/99 Townsend v Commission [2000] ECR-SC I‑A‑11 and II‑45, para. 53

F-19/05 Sanchez Ferriz v Commission [2006] ECR-SC I‑A‑1‑41 and II‑A‑1‑135, para. 57
Staff case summary



Staff case summary

Summary

Officials – Actions – Prior administrative complaint – Time-limits – Mandatory – Claim barred by lapse of time – Reopening – Condition

(Staff Regulations, Arts 90 and 91)

A contract concluded between a staff member and an institution produces its effects and, therefore, is capable of adversely affecting the staff member from the date of its signature, provided that all the details of the contract are fixed.

The time-limits prescribed in Articles 90 and 91 of the Staff Regulations, being designed to ensure legal certainty, are a matter of public policy and are binding on the parties and the Court. Only the existence of new and substantial facts may justify the submission of a claim seeking reconsideration of a decision, such as a decision on a staff member’s classification, which was not challenged within the time-limits prescribed in Articles 90 and 91 of the Staff Regulations. In order for a fact to be new, it is essential that neither the applicant nor the administration was aware of, or in a position to be aware of, the fact in question when the previous decision, which has become definitive, was adopted. In order to be substantial, the fact concerned must be capable of substantially altering the applicant’s situation forming the basis of the initial request which gave rise to the previous decision which has become definitive.

(see paras 53, 55-57)

See:

231/84 Valentini v Commission [1985] ECR 3027, para. 14

T-16/97 Chauvin v Commission [1997] ECR-SC I‑A‑237 and II‑681, para. 32; T-186/98 Inpesca v Commission [2001] ECR II‑557, paras 50 and 51; T-137/99 and T-18/00 Martínez Páramo and Others v Commission [2002] ECR-SC I‑A‑119 and II‑639, para. 56; T-406/03 Ravailhe v Committee of the Regions [2005] ECR-SC I‑A‑19 and II‑79, para. 57

F-49/07 R v Commission [2008] ECR-SC I-A-1-0000 and II-A-1-0000, para. 79, on appeal before the Court of First Instance, Case T‑156/08 P; F-141/07 Maniscalco v Commission [2008] ECR-SC I‑A‑1‑0000 and II‑A‑1‑0000, para. 25
Staff case summary



Staff case summary

Summary

1. Officials – Psychological harassment – Definition

2. Officials – Psychological harassment – Definition

3. Officials – Non-contractual liability of the institutions – Fixed-sum compensation under the Staff Regulations – Claim for additional compensation under ordinary law

(Staff Regulations, Art. 73)

1. Prior to the entry into force of Article 12a of the Staff Regulations, incorporated by Regulation No 723/2004 amending the Staff Regulations, psychological harassment was defined as conduct which aimed, on an objective view, at discrediting an official or at deliberately impairing his working conditions.

(see para. 37)

See:

T-73/05 Magone v Commission [2006] ECR-SC I‑A‑2‑107 and II‑A‑2‑485, para. 79

2. The mere fact that the training tasks he was performing were withdrawn does not constitute evidence that an official was exposed to psychological harassment. The fact that his immediate superior, after receiving complaints about the quality of the official’s work, asked a colleague to provide him with examples of inadequate work by the official in order to ascertain whether the complaints were justified can also not be regarded as evidence of psychological harassment. Similarly, marks and assessments, even negative ones, contained in a staff report cannot, as such, be regarded as evidence that the report was drawn up for the purpose of psychological harassment.

(see paras 38-39)

See:

Magone v Commission , para. 80

3. In the event of an occupational accident or disease, officials are entitled to seek compensation in addition to the benefits received under Article 73 of the Staff Regulations where the institution is responsible for the accident or occupational disease according to ordinary law and the benefits payable under the Staff Regulations are insufficient to provide full compensation for the injury suffered.

Even if a wrongful act of an institution caused the accident or occupational disease of the official concerned, he must prove that the money paid to him under Article 73(2)(c) of the Staff Regulations has not compensated for the non-material damage suffered as a result of that accident or disease. Where the official concerned claims that the money has only compensated for the consequences of his inability to carry on an occupation until the year in which he should have retired had he not retired early on the ground of invalidity, that argument cannot be accepted since the procedure provided for in Article 73 of the Staff Regulations is intended to provide compensation in the form of a lump sum for both material damage and non-material harm which are the result of occupational disease.

(see paras 33, 43)

See:

169/83 and 136/84 Leussink v Commission [1986] ECR I‑2801, paras 10 to 14; C-257/98 P Lucaccioni v Commission [1999] ECR I‑5251, paras 19 to 22

F-23/05 Giraudy v Commission [2007] ECR-SC I‑A‑1‑0000 and II‑A‑1‑0000, para. 198
JUDGMENT OF THE CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL

(Second Chamber)

29 November 2007

Case F-19/07

Georgi Kerelov

v

Commission of the European Communities

(Civil service – Open competition – Selection Board – Contact with members of the Selection Board – Non-admission to competition – Non‑inclusion on the reserve list)

Application: brought under Articles 236 EC and 152 EA, in which Mr Kerelov seeks annulment of the decisions of the selection board in open competition EPSO/AD/43/06 of 6 December 2006 and 2 February 2007, respectively not to include him on the reserve list for that competition and not admitting him to the competition, together with an order for the Commission to pay him fixed damages assessed on equitable principles at EUR 120 491.28.

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

Summary

1. Officials – Actions – Pleas in law

2. Officials – Competitions – Selection Board – Decision excluding a candidate

(Staff Regulations, Art. 30)

1. In an action questioning the lawfulness of a decision to exclude a candidate from a competition on the ground that he failed to comply with the terms of the notice of competition by contacting members of the selection board, it is for the person concerned, where there is sufficiently precise and consistent evidence in support of that fact, to provide proof to the contrary or, at the very least, to provide an explanation or justification such as to call into question the plausibility of the allegation, in order to enable the Tribunal to reach its decision.

(see para. 34)

See:

C‑204/00 P, C‑205/00 P, C‑211/00 P, C‑213/00 P, C‑217/00 P and C‑219/00 P Aalborg Portland and Others v Commission [2004] ECR I‑123, para. 79

2. The selection board in a competition, which is authorised to draw up the list of suitable candidates under Article 30 of the Staff Regulations, has the power to determine that a candidate has behaved improperly and to exclude him from the competition in accordance with the terms of the notice of competition. The fact that the formal decision to exclude the candidate was not communicated to him until after publication of the reserve list mistakenly containing his name is not capable of rendering that decision unlawful, in the absence of any strict time-limit provided for that purpose by the relevant provisions of the Staff Regulations, and of any breach of the principle of sound administration which the institution might thereby be alleged to have committed.

(see para. 37)
JUDGMENT OF THE CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL (Third Chamber)

8 October 2008

Case F-44/07

Florence Barbin

v

European Parliament

(Civil service – Officials – Promotion – Procedure for the allocation of merit points in the European Parliament – Illegality of the instructions governing that procedure – Examination of comparative merits)

Application: brought under Articles 236 EC and 152 EA, in which Ms Barbin seeks annulment of the European Parliament’s decision of 16 October 2006 allocating her one merit point under the 2005 promotion procedure.

Held: The application is dismissed. The parties are to bear their own costs.

Summary

1. Officials – Promotion – Consideration of comparative merits

(Staff Regulations, Arts 43 and 45)

2. Plea of illegality – Scope – Measures the illegality of which may be pleaded

(Art. 241 EC)

1. The consideration of comparative merits for the purpose of awarding merit points to an official may be conducted only within the directorate-general to which he is assigned, in view of the limited number of merit points available for each directorate-general, and given that each official in a directorate or department who is eligible for promotion is competing with all the other officials in his directorate or department for a limited number of merit points. The directorate-general designated to award merit points is that in which the official has spent the longest period of assignment during the reference year.

(see paras 44-45)

See:

T-289/04 Lantzoni v Court of Justice [2006] ECR-SC I‑A‑2‑39 and II‑A‑2‑171, paras 68 and 69; T-156/05 Lantzoni v Court of Justice [2006] ECR-SC I‑A‑2‑189 and II‑A‑2‑969, paras 52 and 53

2. The scope of a plea of illegality must be confined to what is essential for resolving the dispute. The general measure the illegality of which is pleaded must be applicable, directly or indirectly, to the circumstances which are the subject of the action, and there must be a direct legal connection between the individual decision contested and the general measure in question.

(see para. 61)

See:

21/64 Macchiorlati Dalmas v High Authority [1965] ECR 175, 187; 32/65 Italy v Council and Commission [1966] ECR 389, 409

T-6/92 and T-52/92 Reinarz v Commission [1993] ECR II‑1047, para. 57; T-60/99 Townsend v Commission [2000] ECR-SC I‑A‑11 and II‑45, para. 53

F-19/05 Sanchez Ferriz v Commission [2006] ECR-SC I‑A‑1‑41 and II‑A‑1‑135, para. 57
JUDGMENT OF THE CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL

(Second Chamber)

12 March 2009

Case F-24/07

Virginie Lafleur Tighe

v

Commission of the European Communities

(Civil service – Contract staff – Recruitment – Classification in grade – Former individual experts – Professional experience – Degrees – Certificate of equivalence – Admissibility – New and substantial fact)

Application: brought under Articles 236 EC and 152 EA, in which Mrs Lafleur Tighe essentially seeks annulment of the decision of the authority authorised to conclude contracts of engagement classifying her in grade 13, step 1, as shown in her contract of engagement signed on 22 December 2005.

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

Summary

Officials – Actions – Prior administrative complaint – Time-limits – Mandatory – Claim barred by lapse of time – Reopening – Condition

(Staff Regulations, Arts 90 and 91)

A contract concluded between a staff member and an institution produces its effects and, therefore, is capable of adversely affecting the staff member from the date of its signature, provided that all the details of the contract are fixed.

The time-limits prescribed in Articles 90 and 91 of the Staff Regulations, being designed to ensure legal certainty, are a matter of public policy and are binding on the parties and the Court. Only the existence of new and substantial facts may justify the submission of a claim seeking reconsideration of a decision, such as a decision on a staff member’s classification, which was not challenged within the time-limits prescribed in Articles 90 and 91 of the Staff Regulations. In order for a fact to be new, it is essential that neither the applicant nor the administration was aware of, or in a position to be aware of, the fact in question when the previous decision, which has become definitive, was adopted. In order to be substantial, the fact concerned must be capable of substantially altering the applicant’s situation forming the basis of the initial request which gave rise to the previous decision which has become definitive.

(see paras 53, 55-57)

See:

231/84 Valentini v Commission [1985] ECR 3027, para. 14

T-16/97 Chauvin v Commission [1997] ECR-SC I‑A‑237 and II‑681, para. 32; T-186/98 Inpesca v Commission [2001] ECR II‑557, paras 50 and 51; T-137/99 and T-18/00 Martínez Páramo and Others v Commission [2002] ECR-SC I‑A‑119 and II‑639, para. 56; T-406/03 Ravailhe v Committee of the Regions [2005] ECR-SC I‑A‑19 and II‑79, para. 57

F-49/07 R v Commission [2008] ECR-SC I-A-1-0000 and II-A-1-0000, para. 79, on appeal before the Court of First Instance, Case T‑156/08 P; F-141/07 Maniscalco v Commission [2008] ECR-SC I‑A‑1‑0000 and II‑A‑1‑0000, para. 25
Staff case summary



Staff case summary

Summary

Officials – Reports procedure – Career development report – General implementing provisions establishing common appraisal rules for each directorate-general

(Staff Regulations, Art. 43)

The infringement, in drawing up an official’s career development report, of the general implementing provisions for Article 43 of the Staff Regulations adopted by the institution concerned, according to which common appraisal rules for each directorate-general must be taken into account in order to make it easier to compare the merits of officials, to harmonise the merit marks suggested by the reporting officers and to ensure consistent appraisal within a directorate-general, constitutes an infringement of a substantive procedural requirement. Failure to apply those rules or to take them sufficiently into account thus renders the official’s appraisal substantively flawed and justifies its annulment.

(see paras 46-47)
JUDGMENT OF THE CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL

(Second Chamber)

4 June 2009

Case F-52/08

Wolfgang Plasa

v

Commission of the European Communities

(Civil service – Officials – Organisation of departments – Assignment of staff – Commission’s delegation in Algeria – Article 7(1) of the Staff Regulations – Reassignment to Brussels – Statement of reasons – Interests of the service)

Application: brought under Articles 236 EC and 152 EA, in which Mr Plasa seeks annulment of the decision of 8 May 2008 of the Director-General of the Commission’s External Relations Directorate-General ordering his reassignment to headquarters in Brussels (Belgium) from 1 August 2008, together with the award of damages.

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

Summary

Officials – Organisation of departments – Assignment of staff – Administration's discretion

(Staff Regulations, Arts 7(1), 101a and Annex X)

The institutions have a wide discretion to organise their departments to suit the tasks entrusted to them and to assign the staff available to them in the light of such tasks, provided the staff are assigned in the interests of the service and in conformity with the principle that the post to which an official is assigned should correspond to his grade. Reassignment in the interests of the service does not require the official’s consent. Such a requirement would have the effect of imposing an unacceptable restriction on the institutions’ freedom to organise their departments and to adjust that organisation as their needs change.

In particular, Article 7(1) of the Staff Regulations concerning the assignment of officials in the interests of the service continues to apply to staff assigned outside the European Union. According to Article 101a of the Staff Regulations, the special and exceptional provisions applicable to officials assigned to a third country contained in Annex X to the Staff Regulations, Articles 2 and 3 of which, concerning the mobility procedure, refer to the detailed implementing rules laid down by the appointing authority, apply without prejudice to the other provisions of the Staff Regulations.

(see paras 75-77, 111)

See:

161/80 and 162/80 Carbognani and Coda Zabetta v Commission [1981] ECR 543, para. 28; 19/87 Hecq v Commission [1988] ECR 1681, para. 6; C-294/95 P Ojha v Commission [1996] ECR I‑5863, para. 40

T-73/96 Forcat Icardo v Commission [1997] ECR-SC I‑A‑159 and II‑485, para. 26; T-98/96 Costacurta v Commission [1998] ECR-SC I‑A‑21 and II‑49, paras 33, 36 and 40
JUDGMENT OF THE EUROPEAN UNION CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL

(First Chamber)

11 November 2014

Carlo De Nicola

v

European Investment Bank (EIB)

‛Civil service — Referral back to the Tribunal after setting aside — EIB staff — Appraisal — Illegality of the decision of the Appeals Committee — No need to adjudicate on the application for compensation’

Application:

under Article 270 TFEU, in which Mr De Nicola essentially sought, first, annulment of the decision of the Appeals Committee of the European Investment Bank (EIB) of 14 December 2007, secondly, annulment of the decision of 13 July 2007 not to promote him, thirdly, annulment of his appraisal report for 2006, and fourthly, an order that the EIB pay him damages for the psychological harassment which he claimed to have suffered.

Held:

The decision of the Appeals Committee of the European Investment Bank of 14 December 2007 is annulled. There is no need to adjudicate on the claim seeking annulment of the decision of 13 July 2007 not to promote the applicant, on the claim seeking annulment of the appraisal report for 2006 and on the claim seeking compensation for the harm allegedly suffered as a result of psychological harassment. The remainder of the action is dismissed. The European Investment Bank is to bear its own costs and is ordered to pay the costs incurred by Mr De Nicola in Cases F-55/08, T-37/10 P and F-55/08 RENV.

Summary

Officials — Staff of the European Investment Bank — Reports procedure — Appraisal report — Challenge before the Appeals Committee of the EIB — Scope of the Appeals Committee’s review (Staff Regulations of the European Investment Bank, Art. 22) Actions brought by officials — Staff of the European Investment Bank — Actions for damages — Claim for damages based on the same facts presented in two separate actions — Preference — Principle of the sound administration of justice — No need to adjudicate