CELEX: 62008FO0068
Language: en
Date: 2009-06-12 00:00:00
Title: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 12 June 2009. # Rudolf Sluiter v European Police Office (Europol). # Public service - Admissibility. # Case F-68/08.

ORDER OF THE CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL 
      (First Chamber)
      12 June 2009 
      Case F-68/08
      Rudolf Sluiter
      v
      European Police Office (Europol)
      (Civil service – Staff of Europol – Non‑extension of employment contract – Indefinite contract – Admissibility – Interest in bringing proceedings – Action against a decision which had been rescinded when the action was brought – Absence of a prior complaint)
      Application: brought under Article 40(3) of the Convention based on Article K.3 of the Treaty on European Union, on the establishment of
         a European Police Office (Europol Convention), and Article 93(1) of the Staff Regulations applicable to Europol employees,
         in which Mr Sluiter seeks annulment of the decision of the Director of Europol of 4 October 2007 refusing to renew his contract
         and to offer him an indefinite contract, of the decision of the Director of Europol of 29 April 2008 rejecting his complaint
         against the abovementioned decision of 4 October 2007, and of the decision of the Director of Europol of 12 June 2008 once
         again refusing to renew his contract.
      
      Held: The action is dismissed. The applicant is ordered to pay the costs.
      
      Summary
      Officials – Actions – Interest in bringing proceedings – Assessment as at the date on which the action is brought – Contested
            decision rescinded 
      A party’s interest in bringing proceedings must exist at the stage of lodging the action, failing which it will be inadmissible.
         An action for annulment brought against a decision which had been rescinded prior to the date on which the application was
         registered because a fresh decision had been adopted, following reconsideration, on other grounds and on the basis of other
         factors than those on which the administration based its first decision is therefore inadmissible. The fresh decision does
         not constitute a confirmatory decision but, on the contrary, an autonomous decision which replaces the previous decision.
      
      (see paras 33, 34, 36-37)
      See:
      C-362/05 P Wunenburger v Commission [2007] ECR I‑4333, para. 42
      
      T-49/91 Turner v Commission [1992] ECR II‑1855, paras 24 to 26; T-128/96 Lebedef v Commission [1996] ECR-SC I‑A‑629 and II‑1679, paras 19 and 21; T-68/97 Neumann and Neumann-Schölles v Commission [1999] ECR-SC I‑A‑193 and II‑1005, para. 58; T‑49/97 TAT European Airlines v Commission [2000] ECR II‑51, paras 30 to 36; T-159/98 Torre and Others v Commission [2001] ECR-SC I‑A‑83 and II‑395, para. 28; T-281/03 Liakoura v Council [2004] ECR-SC I‑A‑61 and II‑249, paras 36 to 38; T-272/03 Fernández-Gómez v Commission [2005] ECR-SC I‑A‑229 and II‑1049, paras 36 and 42 to 44
      
      F-28/08 Pouzol v Court of Auditors [2008] ECR-SC I‑A‑1‑0000 and II‑A‑1‑0000, paras 45 to 50