Order of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) of 10 December 1997. - Hendrik Smets v Commission of the European Communities. - Officials - Travelling time - Case manifestly lacking any foundation in law. - Case T-134/96.



European Court reports 1997 Page II-02333

Page IA-00371

Page II-00999



Summary



Keywords

1 Officials - Principles - Protection of legitimate expectations - Internal directive of an institution changing the number of days' travelling time granted for annual leave to officials whose place of employment is outside Europe - Breach - None

(Staff Regulations, Annex V, Art. 7, fifth para.)

2 Officials - Actions - Interest in bringing an action - Plea alleging breach of the principle of equal treatment - Need for claims to relate to the applicant personally

(Staff Regulations, Art. 91)

3 Officials - Leave - Annual leave - Travelling time - Calculation - Internal directive fixing identical travelling time for officials whose place of employment is outside Europe and those whose place of employment is in Europe but more than 900 km from their place of origin - Officials entitled to reimbursement of their air fares - Possibility for derogation depending on real travelling time - Equal treatment - Breach - None

(Staff Regulations, Annex V, Art. 7, fifth para.; Annex VII, Art. 8(2), second subpara.)

4 Officials - Leave - Annual leave - Travelling time - Internal directive of an institution concerning applicable criteria - Permissible - Requirement to state reasons - Scope

(EC Treaty, Art. 190; Staff Regulations, Arts 25 and 110; Annex V, Art. 7, fifth para.)

Summary

5 The right to claim protection of legitimate expectations extends to any individual who is in a situation in which it appears that the Community administration has, by giving him precise assurances, led him to entertain reasonable expectations.

The mere fact that, over a number of years, an official whose place of employment is outside Europe has been granted, by individual decision and on the basis of an internal circular, eight and a half calendar days' travelling time for annual leave is not in itself sufficient to confer upon him any legitimate expectation that the same travelling time will be maintained for him in subsequent years or any acquired right to the maintenance of that advantage. That is true a fortiori since the fifth paragraph of Article 7 of Annex V provides that the travelling time for officials whose place of employment and/or origin is outside Europe is to be fixed by special decision `taking into account particular needs', which are to be determined in each case in relation to the means of transport available.

Furthermore, in an area such as the fixing of travelling time, observance of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations cannot, in the absence of any undertaking on the part of the public authority, prevent new rules from applying to the future effects of situations which arose under earlier rules.

6 An official is not entitled to act in the interests of the law or of the institutions and may put forward, in support of an action for annulment, only such claims as relate to him personally. A plea alleging that an internal directive of the defendant institution breaches the principle of equal treatment is therefore to be taken into account only in so far as it relates to the official personally.

7 An internal directive which, by granting two days' travelling time for annual leave in both cases, adopts the same basic rule for two categories of official entitled to reimbursement of their air fares - those whose place of employment and place of origin are both in Europe and are more than 900 km apart and those whose place of employment and/or place of origin are outside Europe - is not contrary to the principle of equal treatment where there is no reason to suppose that, where air travel is concerned, travelling time for officials in the second category is necessarily greater than for those in the first category and where the internal directive itself provides for the possibility of granting additional travelling time if necessary to officials whose place of employment is outside Europe and who show that the round trip cannot be made within the two days.

8 There is nothing in principle to prevent the appointing authority from drawing up rules by an internal directive of general effect to govern the exercise of the discretion conferred upon it by the fifth paragraph of Article 7 of Annex V to the Staff Regulations to determine travelling time for annual leave for officials whose place of employment and/or place of origin are outside Europe. The adoption of such an internal directive is not subject to the prior consultation provided for in Article 110 of the Staff Regulations.

The question whether such an internal directive contains a sufficient statement of reasons must be assessed with regard not only to its wording but also to its context and to all the legal rules governing the matter in question.