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

(Second Chamber)

7 July 2011

Case F-18/11

Pasqualino Zaffino

v

European Commission

(Civil service – Persons claiming the status of official or other staff member of the European Union – Actions – Manifest inadmissibility – Failure to comply with the pre-litigation procedure)

Application: brought under Article 270 TFEU, applicable to the EAEC Treaty pursuant to Article 106a thereof, in which Mr Zaffino, an employee of the Istituto Vigilanza Notturna Gallarate S.r.l., essentially asks the Tribunal to recognise his status as a member of the contract staff of the Commission, and more particularly of the Joint Research Centre (JRC), and, consequently, to order the Commission to pay the remuneration and other financial benefits which he claims are due to him in that capacity, as well as payment of damages for the harm he claims to have suffered.

Held: The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible. The applicant is to bear his own costs.

Summary

Officials – Actions – Community law – Compliance with the prior administrative procedure

(Staff Regulations, Arts 90 and 91)

In the system of remedies laid down by Articles 90 and 91 of the Staff Regulations, first of all, an action before the Civil Service Tribunal must be directed against an act adversely affecting the applicant consisting either in a decision taken by the appointing authority or the authority empowered to conclude contracts of employment, or in the failure of either of those authorities to take a measure required by the Staff Regulations, and secondly, such an action is admissible only if the person concerned has first lodged a complaint against the act adversely affecting him with that authority, in accordance with Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations, and if that complaint has been rejected by express or implied decision. Furthermore, where an official or other staff member, or even a person outside the institution, seeks to secure from the administration the adoption of a decision in relation to him, the prior administrative procedure must begin with a request from the person concerned, in accordance with Article 90(1) of the Staff Regulations, asking the appointing authority or the authority empowered to conclude contracts of employment to adopt the decision he seeks; the rejection of that request may then form the subject of a complaint.

(see para. 12)
ORDER OF THE EUROPEAN UNION CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL

(First Chamber)

28 May 2013

Case F‑67/11

Luigi Marcuccio

v

European Commission

(Civil service — Officials — Annulment of the Commission’s decision — Compliance with the judgment of the Tribunal — Damage arising as a result of non-compliance — Conditions — Action manifestly lacking any basis in law)

Application: under Article 270 TFEU, applicable to the EAEC Treaty pursuant to Article 106a thereof, in which Mr Marcuccio seeks, in essence, first, annulment of the decision of 24 June 2011 by which the European Commission rejected his request of 28 February 2011, inter alia, for the adoption of measures to comply with paragraph 2 of the operative part of the judgment of the Tribunal of 9 June 2010 in Case F‑56/09 Marcuccio v Commission (‘the judgment of 9 June 2010’) and, second, an order for the Commission to pay him compensation for the damage he alleges he suffered.

Held: The action is dismissed as manifestly lacking any basis in law. Mr Marcuccio is to bear his own costs and is ordered to pay the costs incurred by the Commission, including the costs relating to the interim proceedings in Case F‑67/11 R Marcuccio v Commission.

Summary

Officials — Actions brought by officials — Judgment annulling a measure — Effects — Obligation to adopt measures to comply with a judgment — Compliance with EU law — Compensation for damage suffered by the applicant in connection with the annulled act — Specific difficulties — Award of due compensation for the disadvantage suffered by the applicant

(Art. 266 TFEU)

It is for the institution concerned to adopt the measures required to give effect to a judgment delivered in an action for annulment, exercising, subject to review by the European Union Courts, the discretion which it has for this purpose, complying with both the operative part and grounds of the judgment it is required to give effect to and the provisions of EU law.

Where compliance with a judgment delivered in an action for annulment of a measure presents particular difficulties, the institution concerned may satisfy the obligation arising from Article 266 TFEU by taking, in compliance with the principle of legality, such decisions as will provide due compensation for the damage which the person concerned has suffered as a result of the decision which has been annulled.

(see paras 38, 44)

See:

6 October 2004, T‑294/02 Vicente-Nuñez v Commission, para. 46

7 June 2011, F‑84/09 Larue and Seigneur v ECB, para. 64
ORDER OF THE EUROPEAN UNION CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL

(First Chamber)

24 May 2012

Case F‑91/11

Ciprian-Calin Alionescu

v

European Commission

(Civil service — Recruitment — Open competition — Decision to extend the deadline for registration — No complaint — Manifest inadmissibility)

Application: brought under Article 270 TFEU, applicable to the EAEC Treaty pursuant to Article 106a thereof, in which Mr Alionescu seeks annulment of the decision by which the European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) decided to extend by six hours the deadline for registration for open competitions EPSO/AD/206/11 and EPSO/AD/207/11 and the adoption of measures consequent on that annulment.

Held: The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible. The applicant is to bear his own costs.

Summary

Officials — Actions — Act adversely affecting an official — Decision by the European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) to extend the deadline for registration for a competition — No prior administrative complaint — Manifest inadmissibility

(Staff Regulations, Arts 90 and 91)

Except where an action is directed against a measure not of the appointing authority itself, such as a decision of a competition selection board or a staff report, failure to lodge a prior complaint within the required time-limit renders the action inadmissible.

An action against a decision to extend the deadline for registration for a competition taken by the European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) in its capacity as the organising authority for the competitions concerned and not by the selection board in those competitions must necessarily be the subject of a prior administrative complaint. Failing that, such an action is manifestly inadmissible.

(see paras 15-17)

See:

10 June 1987, 317/85 Pomar v Commission, paras 11 and 13

20 June 1990, T‑133/89 Burban v Parliament, para. 17; 16 July 1992, T‑1/91 Della Pietra v Commission, para. 23

9 December 2008, F‑106/05 T v Commission, para. 84
ORDER OF THE CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL

27 May 2011





Joined Cases F-5/11 R and F-15/11 R





Peter Mariën

v

European Commission (F-5/11 R)

and

European External Action Service (EEAS) (F-15/11 R)

(Civil service — Procedure for interim relief — Application for interim measures — No need to adjudicate on the application for suspension of a decision)

Applications: brought under Articles 278 TFEU and 157 EA, and also under Article 279 TFEU, applicable to the EAEC Treaty by virtue of Article 106a thereof, in which Mr Mariën seeks, inter alia, suspension of the decision of 11 January 2011 by which the Head of the European Union Delegation in Kabul (Afghanistan) asked him to move from the hotel in which he was staying temporarily and into the secure residential compound recently built for Delegation staff.

Held: There is no need to adjudicate on the claim for suspension of the decision of 11 January 2011 by which the Head of the European Union Delegation in Kabul (Afghanistan) asked Mr Mariën to move from the hotel in which he was staying temporarily and into the secure residential compound recently built for Delegation staff. The remainder of the claims of the applications for interim relief in Joined Cases F-5/11 R and F-15/11 R are rejected. The costs are reserved.

Summary

1. Application for interim measures — Suspension of operation of a measure — Interim measures — Conditions for granting — Contested decision having exhausted its effects during the proceedings — Request which has become devoid of purpose — No need to adjudicate

(Art. 278 TFEU)

2. Officials — Rights and obligations — Special derogating provisions applicable to officials posted to a non-Member country — Provision of official accommodation — Obligation to live there

(Staff Regulations, Annex X, Art. 5(1))

1. Where a contested decision has exhausted its effects during the proceedings, there is no longer any need for the judge hearing the application for interim measures to adjudicate on the claim for suspension of that decision, without prejudice to the decision that will be taken by the Union judicature in the main action regarding the applicant’s interest in seeking annulment, with retrospective effect, of the contested decision in respect of the period during which it produced its effects.

(see paras 39, 42)

2. It is clear from Article 5(1) of Annex X to the Staff Regulations that the obligation incumbent on a staff member to reside in the accommodation which is provided for him is not conditional upon his agreement. In particular, in circumstances where the obligation is formulated by the competent authority in terms of choosing between two or more specified places of accommodation, it is not open to the staff member to unilaterally attach to the options available conditions or variations desired by him.

(see para. 40)
In the procedure for the transfer of pension rights laid down in Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations, it is the decision adopted by the appointing authority or the authority empowered to conclude contracts of employment, as the case may be, once the capital representing the pension rights acquired by the person concerned before entering the service of the EU has actually been transferred, which constitutes an act adversely affecting him, against which he may bring an action under Article 270 TFEU and Article 91(1) of the Staff Regulations. On the other hand, a proposal concerning the crediting of pension rights, if accepted by the person concerned, does not constitute an act adversely affecting him which may be the subject of an action under Article 270 TFEU and Article 91(1) of the Staff Regulations.

Additional pensionable years may be credited only where the official concerned gives his consent to the procedure for transferring to the EU pension scheme the capital representing pension rights he has acquired previously with the external pension fund concerned, that consent being informed by the proposal for the additional pensionable years to be credited made by the appointing authority or the authority empowered to conclude contracts of employment on the basis of the provisional amount of capital declared by the national pension fund concerned.

In that regard, at the stage when the proposal for the pension rights to be credited is made, the institution concerned merely undertakes to apply correctly to the situation of the official concerned Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations and the general implementing provisions. That obligation on the institution arises directly from the provisions of the Staff Regulations in question, even if the institution does not expressly give such an undertaking.

Thus, such an undertaking expressed in a proposal for pensionable years to be credited does not give rise to a fresh obligation on the institution in question nor, consequently, to a change in the legal position of the person concerned, in particular because, even where the person gives his consent to the transfer to the EU pension scheme of pension rights which he acquired under a different scheme, the institution making the proposal is not under a corresponding obligation, once the amount of capital declared by the national fund has actually been transferred, automatically to award the person concerned the number of pensionable years stated in the original proposal, in the light of which the official confirmed his intention to transfer the capital to the EU pension scheme.

(see paras 31-35)

See:

Judgments of 13 October 2015 in Commission v Verile and Gjergji, T‑104/14 P, EU:T:2015:776, paras 50, 52, 53 and 74; Commission v Cocchi and Falcione, T‑103/13 P, EU:T:2015:777, para. 66, and Teughels v Commission, T‑131/14 P, EU:T:2015:778, paras 37, 46, 48, 49, 58 and 70
ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE EUROPEAN UNION CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL



19 February 2013

Case F-160/12 R

Bernat Montagut Viladot

v

European Commission

(Civil service — Application for interim measures — Admissibility of the application for interim measures — Open competition — Non-inclusion on the reserve list)

Application: brought under Article 270 TFEU, applicable to the EAEC Treaty pursuant to Article 106a thereof, whereby Mr Montagut Viladot seeks an order, in his favour, that ‘the reserve list’ for open competition EPSO/AD/206/11 to establish a reserve for the filling of posts of administrators (AD 5) in the field of economics (‘the competition at issue’) ‘should remain open’ or that the period of validity of that list should be extended.

Held: The applicant’s application for interim measures is dismissed. Costs are reserved.

Summary

Interim measures — Conditions of admissibility — Application — Formal requirements — Statement of pleas establishing a prima facie case for the measures applied for

(Art. 278 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal, Arts 100(2) and (3) and 104(2) and (3))

It is apparent from a reading of Article 102(2) and (3) of the Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal, non-compliance with which constitutes a ground of inadmissibility as a matter of public policy, and of Article 104(2) and (3) of those Rules of Procedure that an application for interim measures must, in itself, enable the defendant to prepare its observations and the judge hearing the application for interim measures to reach a decision, if necessary without any other supporting information, since the essential matters of fact and of law on which the application is based should be clear from the very wording of the application for interim measures. In order to ensure legal certainty and the sound administration of justice it is therefore necessary, in order for an application for interim measures to be admissible, that the essential matters of fact and of law on which it is based are stated coherently and intelligibly in the application itself.

Accordingly, an application for interim measures which fails to state the essential matters of law capable of constituting an intelligible argument that would allow the judge hearing the application to understand the applicant’s legal position and to determine the application without any other supporting information must be dismissed as inadmissible.

(see paras 11-14)

See:

25 June 2003, T-175/03 R Schmitt v EAR, paras 15 and 20

27 April 2010, T-103/10 P(R) Parliament v U, para. 40
ORDER OF THE EUROPEAN UNION CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL

(Third Chamber)

2 July 2014

Case F‑62/12

Gian Andrea Bandieri

v

European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA)

(Civil service — Preliminary issues — Objection of inadmissibility — Delegation of powers conferred on the authority authorised to conclude contracts of employment — Action against the delegating authority — Act complained of not attributable to the defendant — Manifest inadmissibility)

Application: under Article 270 TFEU, in which Mr Bandieri seeks, essentially, annulment of the proposal of 14 November 2011 by which the European Commission determined, at his request, the number of additional years of pensionable service in the Union pension scheme resulting from the transfer of pension rights he had acquired in the Italian pension scheme.

Held: The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible. Mr Bandieri is to bear his own costs and is ordered to pay the costs incurred by the European Aviation Safety Agency.

Summary

Actions brought by officials — Status of defendant — European Aviation Safety Agency — Delegation of powers conferred on the authority authorised to conclude contracts of employment — Action against the delegating authority — Inadmissibility

(Staff Regulations, Art. 91a)

Any actions relating to the areas in which Article 2(2) of the Staff Regulations has been applied must be made against the institution to which the appointing authority entrusted with the exercise of powers is answerable.

In so far as the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) has delegated to the Office for the Administration and Payment of Individual Entitlements (PMO) the powers of appointing authority or authority authorised to conclude contracts of employment with regard to the transfer of pension rights of EASA staff, an action against the EASA concerning a decision adopted in that area by the PMO is manifestly inadmissible.

(see paras 19-21, 25)

See:

judgment in Hall v Commission and CEPOL, F‑22/12, EU:F:2013:202, para. 25
Staff case summary



Staff case summary

Summary

1. Actions brought by officials — Conditions for admissibility — Act adversely affecting an official — Mandatory — To be considered of the Court’s own motion

(Art. 263 TFEU; Staff Regulations, Art. 91)

2. Actions brought by officials — Act adversely affecting an official –Definition — Decision establishing the list of temporary staff reclassified — Included

(Staff Regulations, Arts 90 and 91)

1. The existence of an act adversely affecting an official, against which an action for annulment is brought, in accordance with the provisions of Article 263 TFEU or of Article 91 of the Staff Regulations, is an essential condition for the admissibility of the action and the lack of such an act may be raised by the European Union judicature of its own motion. It follows that an action for the annulment of a career development report which had not been definitively drawn up and, consequently, did not exist at the time of bringing the action is manifestly inadmissible.

(see paras 36, 43, 47)

See:

4 June 1986, 78/85 Group of the European Right v Parliament , para. 11; 7 October 1987, 248/86 Brüggemann v ESC , para. 6

10 July 1990, T‑64/89 Automec v Commission , para. 41; 18 November 1992, T‑16/91 Rendo and Others v Commission , para. 39

2. Under Article 1(2) of the decision of the European Network and Information Security Agency adopting the general provisions for implementing Article 43 of the Staff Regulations and Article 15 of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants, reclassification is an upgrading from the grade held to the grade immediately higher within the same function group. In accordance with Article 10(10) of that decision, the list of temporary staff reclassified to a higher grade is decided on by the authority authorised to conclude contracts.

It follows that the decision of the authority authorised to conclude contracts determining the list of members of the temporary staff to be reclassified constitutes a final decision in so far as it identifies the members of the temporary staff to be reclassified during the reclassification exercise in question. Therefore, it is on publication of that list that the members of the temporary staff who consider themselves eligible for reclassification learn, in a manner which is final and not open to doubt, of the assessment of their respective merits and are able to tell whether their legal position is affected. Consequently, such a decision constitutes, in principle, an act adversely affecting an official, against which an action may be brought by members of the temporary staff who feel themselves to have been prejudiced by that act in so far as they were not reclassified.

(see paras 51-52)

See:

21 November 1996, T‑144/95 Michaël v Commission , paras 30 and 31; 28 September 2004, T‑216/03 Tenreiro v Commission , paras 47 and 48
ORDER OF THE EUROPEAN UNION CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL

(Third Chamber)

15 June 2016

Beata Stepien

and

Mario Animali

v

European Commission

‛Civil service — Officials — Pensions — Transfer of national pension rights — Proposals concerning additional pensionable years — Act not having an adverse effect — Inadmissibility of the action — Application for a decision not going to the substance of the case — Article 83 of the Rules of Procedure’

Application:

under Article 270 TFEU, applicable to the EAEC Treaty pursuant to Article 106a thereof, in which Ms Beata Stepien and Mr Mario Animali seek annulment of the decisions of the appointing authority of the European Commission of 2 and 19 March 2012, respectively, rejecting their complaints against the ‘decisions’ fixing the amount credited to the EU pension scheme in respect of their pension rights acquired previously under another scheme and, to the extent necessary, of the ‘decisions’ of 27 July and 5 October 2011, respectively, calculating that amount.

Held:

The action is dismissed. Ms Beata Stepien and Mr Mario Animali are to bear their own costs and are ordered to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.

Summary

Actions brought by officials — Act adversely affecting an official — Concept — Proposal concerning additional pensionable years with a view to a transfer to the EU pension scheme of pension rights acquired before entry into the service of the EU — Not included

(Staff Regulations, Art. 91(1) and Annex VIII, Art. 11(2))

A proposal concerning additional pensionable years, notified to an official with a view to a transfer to the EU pension scheme of pension rights acquired under another scheme, does not produce binding legal effects which directly and immediately affect the legal situation of the person to whom it is addressed, by significantly altering that situation. Therefore, it does not constitute an act having adverse effect for the purposes of Article 91(1) of the Staff Regulations.

(see para. 18)

See:

Judgments of 13 October 2015 in Commission v Verile and Gjergji, T‑104/14 P, EU:T:2015:776, para. 62, and Teughels v Commission, T‑131/14 P, EU:T:2015:778, para. 58
ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE THIRD CHAMBER OF THE EUROPEAN UNION CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL

6 December 2013

Nikolaos Aridas

v

European Commission

‛Amicable settlement of the dispute — Article 69(1) of the Rules of Procedure — Agreement between the parties before the Tribunal — Removal from the register’

Application:

under Article 270 TFEU, applicable to the EAEC Treaty pursuant to Article 106a thereof, in which Mr Nikolaos Aridas seeks annulment of EPSO’s decision not to admit him to the assessment tests in competition EPSO/AST/117/11.

Held:

Case F‑14/13 is removed from the register of the Tribunal as a result of the agreement reached between Mr Nikolaos Aridas and the European Commission. Mr Nikolaos Aridas and the European Commission are to bear the costs as agreed between them.

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)

(see paras 5-6)