CELEX: 62012FO0045
Language: en
Date: 2012-12-03 00:00:00
Title: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 3 December 2012. # BT v European Commission. # Civil service - Contract staff - Non-renewal of the contract - Insufficient grounds stated for the action - Action manifestly inadmissible. # Case F-45/12.

ORDER OF THE EUROPEAN UNION CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL (First Chamber)
      3 December 2012 (*)
      
      (Civil service – Contract staff – Non-renewal of the contract – Insufficient grounds stated for the action – Action manifestly inadmissible)
      In Case F‑45/12,
      ACTION brought under Article 270 TFEU, applicable to the EAEC Treaty pursuant to Article 106a thereof,
      BT, former member of the contract staff at the European Commission, residing in Bucharest (Romania), represented by N. Visan,
         lawyer,
      
      applicant,
      v
      European Commission, represented by J. Currall and D. Martin, acting as Agents,
      
      defendant,
      THE CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL (First Chamber)
      composed of H. Kreppel (Rapporteur), President, E. Perillo and R. Barents, Judges,
      Registrar: W. Hakenberg,
      makes the following
      Order
      1        By application received at the Tribunal Registry on 10 April 2012, BT – the applicant – seeks, in particular, annulment of
         the decision of the European Commission not to renew her contract as a member of the contract staff (‘the contested decision’).
      
       Factual background to the dispute
      2        The applicant was recruited by the Commission on the basis of a contract as a member of the contract staff within the meaning
         of Article 3a of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union (‘the CEOS’) for a duration of three
         years with effect from 10 November 2008. Under that contract, signed on 9 October 2008 by the Commission and on 10 November
         2008 by the applicant, she was to carry out executive tasks, drafting, accountancy and equivalent technical tasks, within
         the Commission delegation to the Republic of Moldova (‘the delegation’).
      
      3        Prior to the conclusion of the contract, the applicant had received a document, entitled ‘Job description’, in which it was
         stated that the post which might be offered to her in the event of her recruitment would be the post of ‘[c]hargé de mission adjoint’.
      
      4        On 27 July 2011, the Head of Delegation informed the applicant orally that her contract would not be renewed.
      
      5        By note of 6 September 2011, the Director of the Directorate for ‘Resources in Headquarters and in Delegations’ in the Commission
         Directorate-General responsible for ‘Development and Cooperation – EuropeAid’ reminded the applicant that her contract was
         due to expire on 9 November 2011 and advised her to contact the relevant department to obtain the information needed in connection
         with the formalities for her departure.
      
      6        By note of 20 September 2011, the applicant lodged a complaint against the contested decision for the purposes of Article
         90(2) of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union (‘the Staff Regulations’).
      
      7        By decision of 16 January 2012, received by the applicant on 17 January 2012, the authority authorised to conclude contracts
         of employment rejected the complaint.
      
       Procedure and forms of order sought
      8        The present action was brought on 10 April 2012.
      
      9        The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:
      
      –        annul the contested decision;
      –        consequently, order the Commission to reintegrate her into another European Union delegation;
      –        rule that the Commission erred in offering her a post as ‘[c]hargé de mission adjoint’;
      
      –        order the Commission to pay her damages for the non-material harm suffered between 2008 and 2011;
      –        order the Commission to pay her damages to compensate for the material and non-material harm which she has suffered since
         10 November 2011 and which she will suffer until her reintegration into an institution or another delegation of the European
         Union;
      
      –        order the Commission to pay the costs.
      10      The Commission contends that the Tribunal should:
      
      –        dismiss the application;
      –        order the applicant to pay the costs.
       Law
      11      Under Article 76 of the Tribunal Rules of Procedure, where an action is, in whole or in part, manifestly inadmissible or manifestly
         lacking any foundation in law, the Tribunal may, by reasoned order, give a decision on the action without taking further steps
         in the proceedings.
      
      12      In the present case, the Tribunal considers that there is sufficient information in the documents before it and has decided,
         pursuant to Article 76 of the Rules of Procedure, to give a decision on the action without taking further steps in the proceedings.
      
       Claim that the Commission should be ordered to reintegrate the applicant into another delegation of the European Union 
      13      It should be observed that it is not for the Courts of the European Union to issue directions to the administration in the
         context of the review of legality on the basis of Article 91 of the Staff Regulations (judgment of 2 March 2004 in Case T‑14/03
         Di Marzio v Commission, paragraph 63). It follows that the above claim cannot but be rejected as manifestly inadmissible.
      
       Claim that the Tribunal should rule that the Commission erred in offering the applicant a post as ‘[c]hargé de mission adjoint’
      14      Nor is it for the Tribunal, in the context of its review of legality on the basis of Article 91 of the Staff Regulations,
         to make such abstract rulings (judgment of 13 July 1989 in Case 108/88 Jaenicke Cendoya v Commission, paragraphs 8 and 9; judgment of 16 May 2006 in Case T‑73/05 Martin Magone v Commission, paragraph 15). Accordingly, the above claim must be rejected as manifestly inadmissible.
      
       Claim that the contested decision should be annulled
      15      It should be borne in mind that, pursuant to Article 35(1)(e) of the Rules of Procedure, the application must state the pleas
         in law and the arguments of fact and law relied on. Those particulars must be sufficiently clear and precise to enable the
         defendant to prepare a defence and for the Tribunal to rule on the action, if necessary, without any further information.
         In order to ensure legal certainty and the proper administration of justice, it is necessary, if an action is to be admissible,
         that the essential points of law and fact relied on be indicated coherently and intelligibly in the application itself (see,
         to that effect, judgment of 15 February 2011 in Case F‑76/09 AH v Commission, paragraph 29). 
      
      16      It is important to add that the third paragraph of Article 19 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, applicable to proceedings
         before the Tribunal by virtue of Article 7(1) of Annex I thereto, provides that parties – other than Member States; institutions
         of the European Union; States which are party to the Agreement on the European Economic Area; and the EFTA Surveillance Authority,
         which is referred to in that Agreement – must be represented by a lawyer. The main role of that lawyer, as an officer of the
         court, is to ensure that the claims set out in the application are based on sufficiently intelligible and coherent arguments,
         in view of the fact that, as a rule, the written procedure before the Tribunal consists in no more than one exchange of written
         pleadings (see, to that effect, AH v Commission, paragraph 31).
      
      17      Lastly, whilst it should be acknowledged that the terminology and order of presentation of the pleas in law set out in the
         application need not follow those of the Rules of Procedure, and that it is enough that the substance of those pleas be presented
         without adhering to any particular legal classification, the application must none the less set out those pleas with sufficient
         clarity (see, to that effect, order of 28 April 1993 in Case T‑85/92 De Hoe v Commission, paragraph 21).
      
      18      In the present case, it must be stated that the above claims do not meet the requirements of Article 35(1)(e) of the Rules
         of Procedure. 
      
      19      In the first place, while the part of the application entitled ‘Statement of facts giving rise to the action’ contains a long
         description of the factual circumstances which have given rise to the present action, no plea in law emerges from this with
         sufficient clarity as to be readily and accurately identifiable by the defendant or by the judicial authority before which
         the action has been brought. Admittedly, the applicant submits in the application, for the purposes of challenging the refusal
         to renew her contract, that, in the course of the 2010 appraisal, the Head of Delegation had expressed the view that her performance
         had ‘[corresponded] fully to job requirements in terms of efficiency, ability and conduct in the service’. Similarly, the
         applicant states several times that the tasks entrusted to her at the time of the performance of the contract did not correspond
         to the tasks mentioned in her job description. However, such claims do not make it possible to identify the rules or principles
         of law which have allegedly been infringed and, in consequence, they cannot be regarded as pleas in law.
      
      20      In the second place, in the part of the application entitled ‘Law’ and in the ‘summary’ of that application, the applicant
         merely claims, without adequately substantiating her submissions, that the contested decision infringed the fourth paragraph
         of Article 263 TFEU, Article 268 TFEU and the second paragraph of Article 340 TFEU. Although, in order to demonstrate the
         soundness of her arguments, the applicant also refers to the annexes to the application, the Tribunal cannot substitute its
         own assessment for that of the applicant; nor is it for the Tribunal to seek out and identify, in the annexes, the pleas on
         which it might consider the action to be based, since the annexes have a purely evidential and instrumental function.
      
      21      It follows that the claims for annulment of the contested decision must be rejected as manifestly inadmissible.
      
       Claims for damages
      22      The applicant claims that the Tribunal should order the Commission to pay her damages for the harm which she has suffered
         since 2008 and which she may suffer until her reintegration into an institution or another delegation of the European Union.
      
      23      However, it is not possible, from the wording of the application, to identify with sufficient accuracy the error or errors
         which the Commission is alleged to have committed and which are said to have brought about the harm purportedly suffered by
         the applicant.
      
      24      Accordingly, the claims for damages must be rejected as manifestly inadmissible. 
      
      25      It follows from all the foregoing that the action must be dismissed in its entirety as manifestly inadmissible.
      
       Costs
      26      Under Article 87(1) of the Rules of Procedure, without prejudice to the other provisions of Chapter 8 of Title 2 of those
         Rules, the unsuccessful party is to be ordered to pay the costs if they have been applied for in the successful party’s pleadings.
         Under Article 87(2), the Tribunal may, if equity so requires, decide that an unsuccessful party is to pay only part of the
         costs or even that that party is not to be ordered to pay any.
      
      27      It follows from the grounds of the present order that the applicant is the unsuccessful party. Furthermore, the Commission
         expressly claimed in its pleadings that the applicant should be ordered to pay the costs. Since the circumstances of the present
         case do not warrant application of Article 87(2) of the Rules of Procedure, the applicant must bear her own costs and be ordered
         to pay the costs incurred by the Commission.
      
      On those grounds,
      THE CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL (First Chamber)
      hereby orders:
      1.      The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.
      2.      BT must bear her own costs and is ordered pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.
      Luxembourg, 3 December 2012.
      
               W. Hakenberg 
            
             
            
                      H. Kreppel
            
         
               Registrar 
            
             
            
                      President
            
         * Language of the case: English.