ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE SECOND CHAMBER OF THE EUROPEAN UNION CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL

20 June 2012

Case F‑64/11

Monica Westeren

v

European Commission

(Amicable settlement of the proceedings — Article 69(1) of the Rules of Procedure — Agreement between the parties at the initiative of the Tribunal — Removal from the register)

Application: under Article 270 TFEU, applicable to the EAEC Treaty pursuant to Article 106a thereof, in which Ms Westeren seeks annulment of the Commission decision of 4 March 2011, by which the Commission rejected the applicant’s complaint of 12 November 2010 against the Commission decision of 5 October 2010, and compensation for damage which she claims to have suffered as a result of the adoption of that decision.

Held: Case F‑64/11 Westeren v Commission is removed from the register of the Tribunal. The parties are to bear the costs in accordance with the agreement concluded 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)
ORDER OF THE EUROPEAN UNION CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL

(Second Chamber)

24 June 2016

Erik Simpson

v

Council of the European Union

‛Civil service — Referral back to the Tribunal after setting aside — Officials — Upgrade — Decision not to award the applicant grade AD 9 after he had passed a grade AD 9 open competition — Obligation to state grounds — Equal treatment — Manifest error of assessment — Article 81 of the Rules of Procedure — Action manifestly unfounded’

Application:

under Article 270 TFEU, applicable to the EAEC Treaty pursuant to Article 106a thereof, in which Mr Erik Simpson seeks, first, the annulment of the decision of 9 December 2010 by which the Council of the European Union rejected his request for an upgrade to grade AD 9 after he had passed Open Competition EPSO/AD/113/07 organised for the recruitment of heads of unit at grade AD 9 in the field of translation, inter alia those with Estonian as their main language, and of the decision of 7 October 2011 rejecting his complaint and, secondly, an order that the Council pay compensation for the harm suffered and pay the costs.

Held:

The action is dismissed. Mr Erik Simpson is to bear his own costs in Cases F‑142/11, T‑130/14 P and F‑142/11 RENV, respectively, and is ordered to pay the costs incurred by the Council of the European Union in Case F‑142/11. The Council of the European Union is to bear its own costs in Cases T‑130/14 P and F‑142/11 RENV.

Summary

Officials — Equal treatment — Concept — Limits

Differences in treatment which are justified on the basis of objective and reasonable criteria and proportionate to the aim pursued by the differential treatment in question do not constitute an infringement of the principle of equal treatment. The criterion of the interest of the service is included among the objective and reasonable criteria which may justify a difference in treatment between officials. The administration enjoys a wide discretion to decide on the measures to take in the interest of the service, so that the EU judicature, when reviewing compliance with the principle of non-discrimination, must confine itself to checking that the differentiation made by the institution concerned was not arbitrary or manifestly contrary to the interest of the service.

(see paras 46- 47)

See:

Judgment of 16 March 2004 in Afari v ECB, T‑11/03, EU:T:2004:77, para. 65

Judgments of 19 October 2006 in De Smedt v Commission, F‑59/05, EU:F:2006:105, para. 76; of 23 January 2007 in Chassagne v Commission, F‑43/05, EU:F:2007:14, para. 91; and of 25 February 2010 in Pleijte v Commission, F‑91/08, EU:F:2010:13, para. 58 and the case law cited
In that regard, it may be inferred from the fact that a lawyer submitted an application, drew up a reply and observations and attended the hearing that that lawyer did indeed perform acts and services necessary for the purpose of the proceedings before the Civil Service Tribunal.

Under Article 91(b) of the Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal recoverable costs are limited, first, to those incurred for the purpose of the proceedings before the Civil Service Tribunal and, second, to those which were necessary for that purpose.

The Union judicature is not bound by the invoice submitted by the party wishing to recover costs. It must take account only of the total number of hours’ work that may appear objectively necessary for the purposes of the proceedings.

However, where the applicant’s lawyer has already assisted him during proceedings or procedures prior to the relevant action, the Civil Service Tribunal must have regard to the fact that that lawyer is aware of matters relevant to the action, which is likely to have facilitated his work and reduced the preparation time required for the judicial proceedings.

Lastly, the amount of fees does not necessarily depend on the length of the written pleadings produced by a party’s adviser, which may not, as a general rule, be regarded as corresponding to a large quantity of work.

(see paras 32, 33, 38)

order in IPK-München v Commission, T-331/94 DEP, EU:T:2006:11, para. 59 and the case-law cited therein

orders in Suvikas v Council, F-6/07 DEP, EU:F:2009:74, para. 26; Schönberger v Parliament, F-7/08 DEP, EU:F:2010:32, para. 29; and Missir Mamachi di Lusignano v Commission, F-50/09 DEP, EU:F:2012:147, para. 21
ORDER OF THE EUROPEAN UNION CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL

(Third Chamber)

18 September 2014

Luigi Marcuccio

v

European Commission

‛Civil service — Invalidity — Invalidity allowance — Amounts withheld from the invalidity allowance’

Application:

under Article 270 TFEU, applicable to the EAEC Treaty pursuant to Article 106a thereof, in which Mr Marcuccio seeks, in particular, annulment of the decisions of the European Commission contained in his pension statements for the months of April, May and June 2012, on each occasion withholding EUR 500 from his invalidity allowance, annulment of the decisions rejecting his complaints of 15 May and 10 July 2012 and annulment of the decision of 14 August 2012, and an order that the Commission reimburse the sums withheld, plus interest for late payment.

Held:

The action is dismissed as in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded. Mr Marcuccio is to bear his own costs and is ordered to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.

Summary

Actions brought by officials — Judgment annulling a measure — Effects — Setting aside of a judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal annulling the decision to retire an official and ordering the institution to compensate for the harm suffered — Reimbursement of amount wrongly paid

The setting aside, albeit in part, by the General Court of the European Union of a judgment or order of the Civil Service Tribunal has the effect of annulling the provisions by which the Tribunal adjudicated in that judgment or order.

Consequently, a judgment of the General Court setting aside a judgment by which the Civil Service Tribunal annulled the decision to retire an official and ordered the institution concerned to pay him a certain sum in compensation for the harm suffered as a result of that decision eliminated the legal basis for the sum owed by the institution to the official.

That being so, it is for the official to agree to the institution’s request for reimbursement of the sum wrongly paid.

(see paras 27-30)

See:

judgment in Commission v Marcuccio, T‑20/09 P, EU:T:2011:257, para. 2

judgment in De Nicola v EIB, F‑63/12, EU:F:2013:169, para. 24
ORDER OF THE EUROPEAN UNION CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL

(Third Chamber)

15 June 2016

Hilke Riemer-Sullivan

v

European Commission

‛Civil service — Officials — Pensions — Transfer of national pension entitlements — Proposals concerning additional pensionable years — Act not having an adverse effect — Inadmissibility of the action — Absolute bar to proceeding — Article 82 of the Rules of Procedure’

Application:

under Article 270 TFEU, applicable to the EAEC Treaty pursuant to Article 106a thereof, in which Ms Hilke Riemer-Sullivan sought annulment of the decision of the appointing authority of the European Commission of 6 March 2012 rejecting her complaint against the ‘decisions’ fixing the years to be credited to the European Union pension scheme in respect of pension rights which she acquired under two German pension schemes and, in so far as was necessary, of the ‘decisions’ of 7 November 2011 calculating the years to be credited.

Held:

The action is dismissed. Ms Hilke Riemer-Sullivan is to bear her own costs and is ordered to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.

Summary

Judicial proceedings — Action before the Civil Service Tribunal — Applicant not having requested the Tribunal to deliver a judgment by default — Taking into account of the institution’s responses to a measure of organisation of procedure — Defence not submitted within the prescribed time-limit — No effect Actions brought by officials — Act adversely affecting an official — Definition — 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))
ORDER OF THE EUROPEAN UNION CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL

(First Chamber)

20 March 2014

Case F‑33/13

Luigi Marcuccio

v

European Commission

(Civil service — Article 34(1) and (6) of the Rules of Procedure — Application submitted by fax within the prescribed period — Handwritten signature of the lawyer different from that on the original of the application sent by post — Action lodged out of time — Manifest inadmissibility)

Application: under Article 270 TFEU, applicable to the EAEC Treaty pursuant to Article 106a thereof, in which Mr Marcuccio seeks, inter alia, annulment of the decision by which the European Commission refused to pay him a sum corresponding to financial compensation for annual leave not used. Before the original application was lodged by post, a document purported to be a copy of the original application lodged by post was sent on 8 April 2013 by fax to the Registry of the Tribunal, which received it the same day.

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

Summary

Judicial proceedings — Application initiating proceedings — Formal requirements — Application submitted by fax within the prescribed period — Handwritten signature of the lawyer different from that on the original of the application sent by post — Consequence — Date of receipt of the fax not taken into account in order to determine compliance with the period prescribed for bringing an action

(Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal, Art. 34(6); Staff Regulations, Art. 91(3))

As regards the relationship between the signature of the lawyer representing an applicant in an application sent by fax to the Civil Service Tribunal and the signature appended to the original application lodged no later than ten days thereafter, where the signature at the bottom of the faxed application is not the same as the signature on the original application lodged subsequently, the faxed application cannot be taken into account for the purpose of assessing compliance with the time-limit for bringing an action.

Indeed, the strict application by the Tribunal of Article 34(6) of its Rules of Procedure serves the requirements of legal certainty and the need to avoid any discrimination or arbitrary treatment in the administration of justice.

(see paras 30, 31)

See:

22 September 2011, C‑426/10 P Bell & Ross v OHIM, para. 43

14 November 2013, T‑283/13 P Marcuccio v Commission, paras 14 and 19

11 March 2013, F‑131/12 Marcuccio v Commission, para. 24
Thus, in order to avoid depriving the procedure under that provision, which serves to achieve a definitive ruling on the costs of the proceedings, of its effectiveness, it cannot be held that a dispute for the purposes of that provision arises only when the party who has been requested to reimburse the costs advanced by the successful party makes an explicit, comprehensive refusal.

Pursuant to Article 106(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal, if there is a dispute concerning the costs to be recovered, the Tribunal, on application by the party concerned and after hearing the opposite party, is to give its decision by way of reasoned order, from which no appeal may lie.

Under Article 105(c) of the Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal, ‘expenses necessarily incurred by the parties for the purpose of the proceedings, in particular the travel and subsistence expenses and the remuneration of the agent, adviser or lawyer’, are to be regarded as recoverable costs. It follows from that provision that recoverable costs are limited, first, to those incurred for the purpose of the proceedings before the Tribunal and, secondly, to those which were necessary for that purpose.

In that regard, the Courts of the European Union are not empowered to tax the fees payable by the parties to their own lawyers, but may determine the extent to which those fees may be recovered from the party ordered to pay the costs. When ruling on an application for taxation of costs, those courts do not have to take into consideration a national scale fixing lawyers’ fees or any agreement concluded in that respect between the party concerned and its agents or counsel.

In the absence of any provisions of EU law relating to scales of fees, the court must assess freely the facts of the case, taking into account the subject matter and the nature of the dispute, its importance from the aspect of Union law and also the difficulty of the case, the amount of work which the contentious proceedings may have required on the part of the agents or counsel involved and the economic interests which the dispute represented for the parties.

In fixing the recoverable costs, the Civil Service Tribunal is to take account of all the circumstances of the case up to the making of the order on taxation of costs, including the expenses necessarily incurred in relation to the taxation of costs proceedings.

(see paras 35-38)

See:

Order of 23 March 2012, Kerstens v Commission, T‑498/09 P-DEP, EU:T:2012:147, para. 15

Orders of 10 November 2009, X v Parliament, F‑14/08 DEP, EU:F:2009:149, para. 22; of 26 April 2010, Schönberger v Parliament, F‑7/08 DEP, EU:F:2010:32, paras 23 and 24; and of 27 September 2011, De Nicola v EIB, F‑55/08 DEP, EU:F:2011:155, para. 41
ORDER OF THE EUROPEAN UNION CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL

(First Chamber)

12 February 2014

Case F‑71/13

CL

v

European Environment Agency (EEA)

(Civil service — Temporary staff — Duty to provide assistance — Article 24 of the Staff Regulations — Psychological harassment by the hierarchical superior — Rejection of a request for an administrative inquiry to be initiated — Action manifestly inadmissible)

Application: under Article 270 TFEU, in which CL essentially seeks annulment of the decision of 20 September 2012 by which the European Environment Agency (EEA) rejected his request of 21 May 2012 for an administrative inquiry to be initiated with a view to proving or clarifying facts relating to harassment, as well as an order that the EEA pay him EUR 25 000.

Held: The action is dismissed. CL is to bear his own costs and is ordered to pay the costs incurred by the European Environment Agency.

Summary

Actions brought by officials — Prior administrative complaint — Time-limits — Mandatory — Claim barred by lapse of time — Re-establishment of the right of action — Condition — New fact

(Staff Regulations, Arts 90 and 91)

An official or member of the temporary staff is not allowed to circumvent the time-limits laid down by Articles 90 and 91 of the Staff Regulations for lodging a complaint and an appeal by calling into question, by means of a request, a previous decision which has not been challenged within the period prescribed, since only the existence of material new facts may justify the submission of a request for a review of a decision which has become definitive.

In the system for the settlement of disputes established by the Staff Regulations, a request for assistance submitted by an official under Article 24 of the Staff Regulations may in no case re-establish to his advantage a right of action which has already lapsed against a decision which has become definitive upon expiry of the time-limits referred to above.

(see paras 26, 27)

See:

22 September 1994, T‑495/93 Carrer and Others v Court of Justice, para. 21

10 September 2007, F‑146/06 Speiser v Parliament, para. 22
Articles 90 and 91 of the Staff Regulations make the admissibility of an action brought by an official or member of the temporary staff against the institution to which he belongs conditional on the proper observance of the preliminary administrative procedure laid down thereunder.

Under Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations, a complaint may be submitted against a decision of the appointing authority. Pursuant to that provision, the complaint must be submitted within a period of three months from the date of notification of the decision to the person concerned, but in no case later than three months from the date on which the latter received such notification, if the measure affects a specified person.

The time-limit of three months for lodging a complaint against an act adversely affecting an official or other member of staff, laid down by Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations, is a matter of public policy and not subject to the discretion of the parties or the court, since it was established in order to ensure that legal positions are clear and certain and that there is legal certainty. It is therefore for the EU judicature to ascertain, of its own motion, whether it has been complied with.

(see paras 27-29)

Order of 4 June 1987 in G.P. v ESC, 16/86, EU:C:1987:256, paragraph 6

Orders of 11 May 1992 in Whitehead v Commission, T‑34/91, EU:T:1992:64, paragraph 18, and 7 September 2005 in Krahl v Commission, T‑358/03, EU:T:2005:301, paragraph 35 and the case-law cited therein

Order of 10 September 2007 in Speiser v Parliament, F‑146/06, EU:F:2007:153, paragraph 21
For an official or former official to be able to bring an action under Articles 90 and 91 of the Staff Regulations seeking annulment of a decision of the appointing authority making an appointment, he must have a personal interest in having the contested decision annulled and such an interest presumes that the claim should be capable, by its result, of securing an advantage for him. As a condition of admissibility, the applicant’s interest in bringing proceedings must be evaluated at the time the action is brought.

A former official who has retired at the time when he brings his action, and is thus no longer a member of the European Union civil service, would no longer be in a position, should the Civil Service Tribunal annul the appointment decision, to apply for the contested post, since he would no longer satisfy one of the eligibility criteria laid down in the vacancy notice, that is, that he must be an official. Consequently, given that he is no longer able to apply for the contested post when he brings his action, the former official does not have a personal interest in having the appointment decision annulled, since that annulment could not secure an advantage for him.

The fact that the former official was retired at his own request, before reaching the age when he would have been retired automatically, does not call that finding into question. It is clear from a reading of Article 47(f) in conjunction with Article 52(b) of the Staff Regulations that early retirement granted at the request of the person concerned results in termination of service. The consequences of such retirement are therefore the same as those of resigning.

Although the former official no longer has a legitimate interest in having the appointment decision annulled, he does, however, still have an interest in seeking a ruling on that appointment in connection with a claim for compensation for the material and non-material damage which he considers that he has suffered owing to the various breaches committed by his administration.

(see paras 17-19, 22, 25)

Judgment in Del Plato v Commission, 126/87, EU:C:1989:115, paras 18 to 20

Judgments in Marcato v Commission, T‑82/89, EU:T:1990:77, para. 54; Moritz v Commission, T‑20/89, EU:T:1990:80, para. 15; Latham v Commission, T‑82/91, EU:T:1994:14, paras 24 to 26; Moat v Commission, T‑41/95, EU:T:1996:87, para. 26; Contargyris v Council, T‑6/96, EU:T:1997:76, para. 32, and Combescot v Commission, T‑250/04, EU:T:2007:262, para. 28

Judgment in Commission v Q, T‑80/09 P, EU:T:2011:347, para. 156 and the case-law cited therein, and order in Attey and Others v Council, T‑118/11, T‑123/11 and T‑124/11, EU:T:2012:270, para. 28
ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE THIRD CHAMBER OF THE EUROPEAN UNION CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL

8 October 2015

FK

v

European Police College (CEPOL)

‛Amicable settlement — Article 90(1) of the Rules of Procedure — Agreement between the parties on the initiative of the Tribunal — Removal from the register’

Application:

under Article 270 TFEU, by which FK and six other applicants initially sought: annulment of the decision of the European Police College (CEPOL) of 23 May 2014 providing for the relocation of that agency to Budapest (Hungary) and informing its staff that any refusal to continue their employment at the new seat ‘will be considered as resignation [taking] effect [on] 30 September 2014’; annulment of CEPOL’s various decisions of 28 November 2014 rejecting the complaints lodged by the initial applicants individually between 8 and 21 August 2014; annulment of two decisions of 22 December 2014 by which CEPOL claimed to have accepted the resignations of FM and FO respectively; compensation for the material and non-material harm suffered.

Held:

Case F‑41/15 is to be removed from the register of the Tribunal. The European Police College, in accordance with the terms of the agreement concluded, is to bear its own costs in connection with the case of FK and pay those incurred by FK.

Summary

Actions brought by officials — Amicable settlement of a dispute before the Civil Service Tribunal — Removal from the register

(Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal, Art. 91(1))

(see para. 4)