Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

Case T‑233/16 P

(publication by extracts)

José Luis Ruiz Molina

v

European Union Intellectual Property Office

(Appeal — Civil service — Members of the temporary staff — Contract for a fixed period with a termination clause ending the contract in the event of the temporary staff member’s name not being included on the reserve list of the next open competition — Termination of the contract pursuant to the termination clause — Reclassification of a contract for a fixed period as a contract for an indefinite period — Res judicata — Clause 5(1) of the ETUC-UNICE-CEEP framework agreement on fixed-term work — Obligation to state reasons)

Summary — Judgment of the General Court (Appeal Chamber), 27 June 2017

1. Acts of the institutions — Withdrawal — Legal act conferring individual rights — Unlawfulness
2. Acts of the institutions — Withdrawal — Legal act conferring individual rights — Conditions — Action to be taken within a reasonable time and compliance with the principles of protection of legitimate expectations and legal certainty — Unlawful acts adversely affecting the addressee — Softening of the conditions

1. See the text of the decision.

   (see para. 26)
2. It follows from the general principles of EU law that the administration is, as a rule, empowered to revoke, with retroactive effect, favourable administrative acts adopted unlawfully, but that the retroactive withdrawal of an act which has created rights in favour of the person to whom it is addressed is generally subject to very strict conditions. Whilst it must be acknowledged that any EU institution which finds that a measure which it has just adopted is tainted by illegality has the right to withdraw that measure within a reasonable period, with retroactive effect, that right may be restricted by the need to respect the legitimate expectations of a beneficiary of the measure, who has been led to rely on the lawfulness thereof. Such a decision is also subject to the condition that it does not infringe the principle of legal certainty.

   However, the strict conditions which attach to the retroactive withdrawal of an illegal administrative act creating individual rights are not relevant where the act in question does not, vis-à-vis the person to whom it is addressed, constitute an act giving rise to rights, but an act adversely affecting him.

   It follows that there is nothing to prevent the withdrawal of an illegal or legal administrative act which, vis-à-vis the person to whom it is addressed, is principally an act adversely affecting him and incidentally creates rights in his favour, provided that the legitimate expectations of that person are not interfered with and the principle of legal security is not infringed.

   (see paras 27-29)

[Top](#document1)