ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
10

Article 5 of the GIP for Article 45, relating to the promotion procedure, provides: ‘... 3. Within each Directorate-General, the Directors shall consult the reporting officer referred to in the general provisions for implementing Article 43 of the Staff Regulations. 4. In each Directorate-General, following the consultation under paragraph 3 above, the Director-General, Deputy Directors-General, Directors and, where appropriate, the Principal Advisers, shall proceed with the examination of the comparative merits of the officials eligible for promotion. ... 5. Following the examination in paragraph 4 above, the Director-General shall hold a discussion with a delegation appointed by the Central Staff Committee. 6. Following the discussion in paragraph 5 above, the Director-General shall communicate to all the Directorate-General’s staff the list of the officials he or she wishes to propose for promotion and shall forward this list to the Joint Promotion Committee referred to in Annex I [to the GIP for Article 45]. 7. The jobholder shall have five working days from the date of publication of this list in which to lodge a complaint with the Joint Promotion Committee against the fact that he or she is not on the list, with supporting arguments. On receipt of the lists referred to in paragraph 6, the Joint Promotion Committee, taking into account any complaints it has received, shall compare the merits of the officials eligible for promotion and present for the attention of the appointing authority the list of officials it recommends for promotion. At the same time, it shall forward the complaints and the discrepancies, if any, referred to in Annex III [to the GIP for Article 45]. 8. Once it has received the information referred to in paragraph 7 above, and has at its disposal the files of all the officials eligible for promotion, the appointing authority shall carry out a final comparison of the merits of the eligible officials and, taking into account the budgetary resources available, shall adopt the list of officials promoted. ... 9. The list of officials promoted shall be published for the attention of all Commission Staff … by means of an [Administrative Notice]. Each official shall be invited to consult his/her promotion file. 10. ... 11. Publication of the list of officials promoted referred to in paragraph 9 constitutes communication of the decision within the meaning of Article 25 of the Staff Regulations. ... 12. ...’
ORDER OF THE CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL (Full Court)

22 May 2007

Case F-1/05

Pia Landgren

v

European Training Foundation (ETF)

(Provisional compensation)

Application: brought under Articles 236 EC and 152 EA, in which Ms Landgren and the ETF informed the Tribunal that they had not reached agreement on the amount of monetary compensation payable to the applicant by the ETF following the Tribunal’s interlocutory judgment (Case F‑1/05 Landgren v ETF [2006] ECR-SC I‑A‑1‑123 and II-A-1-459), and each made submissions on the amount of compensation.

Held: The amount of monetary compensation payable to the applicant by the ETF is provisionally fixed at EUR 39 000. The costs are reserved.

Summary

Officials – Actions – Unlimited jurisdiction – Annulment of the decision to dismiss a member of the temporary staff

(Staff Regulations, Art. 91(1))
Staff case summary



Staff case summary

Summary

1. Officials – Actions – Act adversely affecting an individual – Definition

(Staff Regulations, Art. 91; Council Regulation No 1365/75, Art. 17(2); Commission Regulation No 91/88)

2. Procedure – Application initiating proceedings – Formal requirements

(Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 44(1)(c))

1. Only acts producing binding legal effects capable of affecting, directly and individually, the interests of the parties concerned by bringing about a distinct change in their legal situation can be considered to affect them adversely. Moreover, certain decisions, even though they do not affect the pecuniary interests or rank of the official in question, may be regarded, in the light of the nature of the functions concerned and the circumstances, as acts adversely affecting that official if they adversely affect his non-pecuniary interests or future prospects.

That does not apply to a letter from the Director of the European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions stating that he cannot grant the request of a former member of the temporary staff to withdraw her decision to resign. Such a letter does not affect the situation of the individual concerned under the Staff Regulations, since that situation has in fact been determined by her decision to resign, which took immediate effect.

The legal situation of the individual concerned is also not changed by the fact that the Foundation explained, in the same letter, that she did not need documents from the administration in order to register with her national employment service. Furthermore, that explanation cannot be interpreted as a refusal on the part of the administration to release those documents.

(see paras 39-43)

See:

35/72 Kley v Commission [1973] ECR 679, paras 4 and 5; 125/80 Arning v Commission [1981] ECR 2539, para. 17; C-32/92 P Moat v Commission [1992] ECR I‑6379, para. 9; C-373/04 P Commission v Alvarez Moreno [2006] ECR I‑1*, para. 42

2. A claim for annulment of an application made by a former member of the temporary staff seeking to obtain, without going into detail and using imprecise terms, all the allowances and advantages, in other words the financial benefits, to which that person can lay claim by reason of her resignation, does not satisfy the conditions laid down by Article 44(1)(c) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance.

(see paras 49-50)

See:

T-72/92 Benzler v Commission [1993] ECR II‑347, paras 16, 18 and 19
Staff case summary



Staff case summary

Summary

Procedure – Application for legal aid – Conditions for granting

(Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Arts 94(2) and 96(1); Council Decision 2004/752, Art. 3(4))
ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL

8 May 2007

Case F-84/06 AJ

Luigi Marcuccio

v

Commission of the European Communities

(Legal aid)

Application: in which Mr Marcuccio, prior to bringing an action before the Civil Service Tribunal, seeks legal aid under Article 94 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, applicable mutatis mutandis to the Civil Service Tribunal pursuant to Article 3(4) of Council Decision 2004/752/EC, Euratom of 2 November 2004 establishing the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (OJ 2004 L 333, p. 7), until the entry into force of its rules of procedure.

Held: The application for legal aid is rejected.

Summary

Procedure – Application for legal aid – Conditions for granting

(Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Arts 94(2) and 96(1); Council Decision 2004/752, Art. 3(4))
ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL

1 February 2007

Case F-142/06 R

Francesco Bligny

v

Commission of the European Communities

(Application for interim relief – Application for suspension of operation of a measure – Application for interim measures – Urgency – None)

Application: brought under Articles 242 EC, 243 EC, 157 EA and 158 EA, in which Mr Bligny seeks, first, suspension of the decisions of the selection board of 23 November and 7 December 2006 refusing to admit him to competition EPSO/AD/26/05 and, secondly, as a provisional measure, an order for his written test in that competition to be corrected.

Held: The application for interim measures is rejected. The costs are reserved.

Summary

Application for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Conditions for granting – Urgency – Serious and irreparable damage

(Art. 24 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2))
Staff case summary



Staff case summary

Summary

Procedure – Application for legal aid – Conditions for granting

(Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Arts 94(3) and 96(1); Council Decision 2004/752, Art. 3(4))
Staff case summary



Staff case summary

Summary

Officials – Equal treatment – Recruitment – Competitions

(Staff Regulations, Annex III, Art. 5)

In an open competition to join the Community civil service, open equally to candidates who have worked or work for an institution and to candidates without such professional experience, statistics showing a higher success rate for candidates in the first group do not give grounds for assuming that there has been discrimination between candidates from either group, since that difference could be accounted for by a number of objective factors such as, for example, better knowledge of the competition field.

(see paras 41, 43-44)

See:

T-294/03 Gibault v Commission [2005] ECR-SC I‑A‑141 and II‑635, para. 53; T-361/03 Vanlangendonck v Commission [2005] ECR-SC I‑A‑377 and II‑1709, para. 52; T-100/04 Giannini v Commission [2008] ECR-SC I-A-2-0000 and II-A-2-0000, para. 157
Staff case summary



Staff case summary

Summary

Procedure – Costs – Taxation – Purpose

(Art. 236 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 92(1); Staff Regulations, Art. 91)

The legislature has introduced a special procedure for the taxation of costs where the parties disagree on the amount and nature of the recoverable costs following a judgment or order by which the Court of First Instance brought proceedings to an end and made an order as to the costs. Furthermore, that special procedure, laid down in Article 92(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, concerning the taxation of costs, excludes any claim for the same sums, or sums expended for the same purposes, in connection with proceedings alleging non‑contractual liability of the Community. Thus an applicant may not bring an application, on the basis of Article 236 EC and Article 91 of the Staff Regulations, which has, in reality, the same subject-matter as an application for taxation of costs.

(see paras 16-17)

See:

T‑351/03 Schneider Electric v Commission [2007] ECR II‑2237, para. 297
Staff case summary



Staff case summary

Summary

Procedure – Costs – Taxation – Recoverable costs – Court having jurisdiction

(Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 92(1))

A claim seeking the annulment of a contested decision and of the decision rejecting a complaint lodged against that contested decision, as well as a claim seeking an order that an institution pay an official a sum of money with default interest and the capitalisation of interest, the actual aim of which is to obtain payment by the institution of recoverable costs relating to an action which the Court of First Instance has concluded and for which an order as to the costs has been made, must be regarded, in view of their purpose, as an application for taxation of costs. Since, under Article 92(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, such an application should have been made to that Court, the Civil Service Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to rule on the abovementioned claims.

In that respect, it is for the court alone to assess and not for the parties to decide on the precise legal characterisation of the claims in an action for the purpose of determining whether the court has jurisdiction to consider them.

(see paras 16-18)
ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL

6 November 2007

Case F-67/07 AJ

Carlos Arauzo Burillo

v

Commission of the European Communities

(Legal aid)

Application: in which Mr Arauzo Burillo seeks legal aid under Article 94 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, applicable mutatis mutandis to the Civil Service Tribunal on the date when the application for legal aid was submitted, pursuant to Article 3(4) of Council Decision 2004/752/EC, Euratom of 2 November 2004 establishing the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (OJ 2004 L 333, p. 7).

Held: The application for legal aid is dismissed.

Summary

Procedure – Application for legal aid – Conditions for granting

(Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 94(3); Council Decision 2004/752, Art. 3(4))
ORDER OF THE CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL

(First Chamber)

31 March 2009

Case F-146/07

Luigi Marcuccio

v

Commission of the European Communities

(Civil service – Officials – Request for an investigation into an accident of which the applicant claims to have been the victim – Action for damages – Action manifestly unfounded in law – Manifest inadmissibility)

Application: brought under Articles 236 EC and 152 EA, in which Mr Marcuccio seeks, in particular, annulment of the Commission’s decision not to grant his request to open an investigation into an incident which allegedly occurred when he was posted to the Commission’s delegation in Angola, as well as compensation for the damage he allegedly suffered in connection with that incident.

Held: The action is dismissed as partly manifestly inadmissible and partly manifestly unfounded in law. The applicant is ordered to pay the costs.

Summary

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

(Staff Regulations, Arts 90 and 91)

The possibility of submitting a request as provided for in Article 90(1) of the Staff Regulations does not allow an official to set aside the time-limits laid down in Articles 90 and 91 of the Staff Regulations for the lodging of a complaint and an appeal by indirectly calling in question, by means of a request, a previous decision which had not been challenged within the time-limits. It follows that only the existence of important new facts is capable of justifying the submission of a request for reconsideration of a decision which is no longer open to challenge.

(see paras 39, 47)

See:

232/85 Becker v Commission [1986] ECR 3401, para. 8
EN
ReportsofCases
ECLI:EU:F:2010 :108 1ORDER OF THE PR ESIDENT O F THE SECOND C HAMBER OF THE CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL
23 September 2010
Case F-51/07 R ENV
Philippe Bui Van
v
European Comm ission
(Amicable settlement on th e initiative of the Tribunal — Removal from th e register)
Application:brought under Articles 236 E C and 152 E A, in which M r Bui Van seeks annulment of the 
decision o f the Director-General of the Jo int Research Centre of the Commission o f 
4 October 2006 r eclassifying him in grade AS T 3, step 2 , whereas he had initially been 
classified in grade AS T 4, step 2 , and of the decision o f the appointing authority of 
5 March 2007 r ejecting his complaint, as well as the payment of on e symbolic euro as 
compe nsation for the non -material damage allegedly suffered.
Held: Case F-51/07 RENV Bui Van v C omm ission is removed from th e register of the Tribunal. 
Notice is given th at the Commission a grees that the applicant should retain th e sum of 
EUR 1 500 p aid t o him p ursuant to th e Tribunal’s judgment of 11 September 2008 i n 
Case F-51/07 B ui V an v C omm ission. Notice is given th at the applicant agrees that, for 
the purpose of th e reimbursement of part of th e sum w hich he received in costs 
pursuant to the judgment of 11 September 2008 , the Commission is to recover the sum of 
EUR 1 500 b y withholding EUR 500 f rom his remuneration e ach month for three m onths 
from O ctober 2010 . Each party is to bear its own costs relating to the present proceedings 
and the proceedings before the General Court of the European Union.
Summ ary
Officials — Actions — Amicable se ttlement of the dispute before the Civil Service Tribunal — 
Removal from t he register
(Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal, Art. 69)
Staff case summary



Staff case summary

Summary

Officials – Actions – Act adversely affecting an official – Definition – Preparatory act – Designation of the reporting officer and the countersigning officer for the assessment procedure

(Staff Regulations, Arts 90(2) and 91(1))

Only measures producing binding legal consequences liable to affect the applicant’s interests directly and immediately by significantly changing his legal situation constitute acts or decisions which may be the subject of an action for annulment. In the case of acts or decisions adopted by a procedure involving several stages, in particular where they are the culmination of an internal procedure, only a measure definitively establishing the position of the institution at the conclusion of that procedure is challengeable, and not a provisional measure intended to pave the way for the final decision, although the validity of the provisional measure may be contested indirectly in an action against the challengeable measure. Even if decisive significance might be attributed to a letter designating an official’s reporting officer and countersigning officer for the purposes of the reporting procedure, that designation constitutes a provisional measure intended to pave the way for the final decision on the assessment of the official’s efficiency, ability and conduct in the service, pursuant to Article 43 of the Staff Regulations. The validity of such a measure can therefore only be called into question in an action against the final assessment report.

(see paras 16-17)

See:

11/64 Weighardt v Commission [1965] ECR 285, 298; 346/87 Bossi v Commission [1989] ECR 303, para. 23

T-32/89 and T-39/89 Marcopoulos v Court of Justice [1990] ECR II‑281, paras 21 and 22; T-358/03 Krahl v Commission [2005] ECR‑SC I‑A‑215 and II‑993, para. 38

F-101/05 Grünheid v Commission [2006] ECR-SC I‑A‑1‑55 and II‑A‑1‑199, para. 33; F‑27/06 and F‑75/06 Lofaro v Commission [2007] ECR-SC I-A-0000 and II-A-0000, para. 57, on appeal before the Court of First Instance, Case T‑293/07 P
ORDER OF THE CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL

(Third Chamber)

11 June 2009

Case F‑81/08

Zoe Ketselidou

v

Commission of the European Communities

(Civil service – Officials – Action – Judgment of a Community court – Substantial new fact – None)

Application: brought under Articles 236 EC and 152 EA, in which Ms Ketselidou seeks annulment of the Commission’s decision of 10 January 2008 rejecting her request for revision of the calculation of her pension annuities resulting from the transfer to the Community scheme of the actuarial equivalent of pension rights she had acquired in Greece.

Held: The application is dismissed as manifestly unfounded. The applicant is ordered to pay the costs in their entirety.

Summary

1. Officials – Actions – Time-limits – Reconsideration of an administrative decision that has become definitive

(Staff Regulations, Arts 90 and 91)

2. Officials – Actions – Prior administrative complaint – Time-limits – Claim barred by lapse of time – Reopening – Condition – New fact

(Staff Regulations, Arts 90 and 91)

1. The existence of a new and substantial fact may warrant the submission of a request for reconsideration of a decision that has become definitive upon expiry of the time-limits for appeal. The fact in question must be capable of substantially changing the situation of the person seeking reconsideration of that decision. Furthermore, it is for the person concerned to submit his administrative request within a reasonable period. His interest in seeking to bring his administrative situation into line with new rules must be weighed against the need for legal certainty.

(see paras 32-36)

See:

231/84 Valentini v Commission [1985] ECR 3027, para. 14; 232/85 Becker v Commission [1986] ECR 3401, para. 10

T‑495/93 Carrer and Others v Court of Justice [1994] ECR‑SC I‑A‑201 and II‑651, para. 20; T‑202/97 Koopman v Commission [1998] ECR‑SC I‑A‑163 and II‑511, para. 24; T‑42/97 Lebedef v Commission [1998] ECR‑SC I‑A‑371 and II‑1071, para. 25; T‑186/98 Inpesca v Commission [2001] ECR II‑557, para. 51

F‑92/05 Genette v Commission [2007] ECR‑SC I‑A‑1‑0000 and II‑A‑1‑0000, para. 62

2. The finding, by a judgment of a Community court, that an administrative decision of general application infringes the Staff Regulations cannot constitute, in respect of officials who have failed to make use in good time of the possible remedies offered by the Staff Regulations, a new fact warranting the submission of a request for reconsideration of individual decisions which the appointing authority has adopted concerning them.

(see para. 47)

See:

T‑16/97 Chauvin v Commission [1997] ECR-SC I‑A‑237 and II‑681, paras 39 to 45; T‑165/97 Gómez de la Cruz Talegón v Commission [2000] ECR‑SC I‑A‑19 and II‑79, para. 51
ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE FIRST CHAMBER OF THE CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL

18 December 2008

Case F-14/08

X

v

European Parliament

(Removal from the register – Discontinuance – Costs – Admissibility)

Application: brought under Articles 236 EC and 152 EA, in which X seeks, first, annulment of the opinion concerning her given by the Invalidity Committee on 22 June 2007, and of the decision of the Parliament’s Director of Personnel of 27 June 2007 that she did not suffer from permanent and total disability making it impossible for her to perform her duties, and, secondly, that the file should be sent back to the Invalidity Committee for it to take a fresh decision on her case.

Held: Case F‑14/08 X v Parliament is removed from the register of the Tribunal. The Parliament is to bear, in addition to its own costs, three quarters of the costs incurred by the applicant. The applicant is to bear one quarter of her costs.

Summary

1. Procedure – Costs – Discontinuance justified by the conduct of the other party

(Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal, Art. 89(5))

2. Officials – Actions – Act adversely affecting an official – Definition – Decision that the official is fit for work and ordering him to return to work – Admissibility

(Staff Regulations, Arts 59(4), 90 and 91)

1. As provided for in Article 89(5) of the Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal, a party who discontinues or withdraws from proceedings is to be ordered to pay the costs if they have been applied for in the observations of the other party on the discontinuance. However, upon application by the party who discontinues or withdraws from proceedings, the costs are to be borne by the other party if this appears justified by the conduct of that party. In an action brought by an official against a decision refusing to recognise his invalidity, where the institution failed to reply to a prior complaint within the four-month period for reaching an implied rejection decision and adopted an ambiguous attitude regarding the official’s position after he brought the action, it must be regarded as having contributed, through its conduct, to legal proceedings being brought, and may be ordered to pay part of the applicant official’s costs.

(see paras 6-10)

2. Where a decision of the appointing authority resulting from an opinion of the Invalidity Committee contains, in addition to a view on an official’s fitness for work which does not, in itself, alter that person’s previous legal position, an instruction for him to return to work, that decision constitutes an act adversely affecting the official which he is entitled to challenge.

(see paras 14, 17, 19)