CELEX: 62006FJ0052
Language: en
Date: 2007-11-29 00:00:00
Title: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 29 November 2007. # Mike Pimlott v European Police Office (Europol). # Public service. # Case F-52/06.

JUDGMENT OF THE CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL (Second Chamber)
      29 November 2007
      Case F-52/06
      Mike Pimlott
      v
      European Police Office (Europol)
      (Civil service – Europol staff – Renewal of contract as Europol staff member – Article 6 of Staff Regulations applicable to Europol employees – Maximum duration of staff employment contracts)
      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 Pimlott seeks, first, annulment of Europol’s decision of 25 January 2006 rejecting his complaint and, second,
         an order for Europol to renew his contract for a period of four years from 1 January 2006.
      
      Held: The action is dismissed. Each party is to bear its own costs.
      
      Summary
      1.      Officials – Actions – Acts adversely affecting an official – Definition
      (Europol Convention, Art. 40(3); Europol Staff Regulations, Arts 92(2) and 93(1))
      2.      Community law –Interpretation – Texts in several languages
      (Europol Staff Regulations, Art. 6)
      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.
         That does not apply to a letter from Europol which merely states the administration’s intention to consider a staff member’s
         application for renewal of his employment contract, without any decision having been taken at that stage. The mere expression
         of a future intention cannot generate rights and obligations altering the legal situation of the person concerned. On the
         other hand, a letter from the administration informing the staff member of its decision to offer to renew his contract for
         a certain period must, in that it precludes the possibility of renewing his contract for a longer period, be regarded as an
         act adversely affecting him, against which it is for the person concerned to lodge an administrative complaint under the conditions
         laid down in Articles 92(2) and 93 of the Europol Staff Regulations, without any need for him to await the signing of the
         contract.
      
      (see paras 48, 50, 52-53)
      See:
      269/84 and 292/84 Fabbro and Others v Commission [1986] ECR 2983, paras 10 and 11; 204/85 Stroghili v Court of Auditors [1987] ECR 389, para. 6
      
      T-319/00 Borremans and Others v Commission [2002] ECR‑SC I‑A‑171 and II‑905, paras 30 to 33; T-358/03 Krahl v Commission [2005] ECR-SC I‑A‑215 and II‑993, para. 38
      
      F-47/06 Aimi and Others v Commission [2006] ECR-SC I-A-1-165 and II-A-1-639, para. 58
      
      2.      The need for a uniform application, and hence interpretation, of Community regulations prevents the text of a provision from
         being considered in one language version in isolation, but requires it to be interpreted according to its author’s actual
         intention and purpose, viewed in the light of all the Community language versions available. Where some of the translations
         of a provision from its original language differ from the others, they cannot take precedence alone over the other language
         versions.
      
      In accordance with that principle, Article 6 of the Europol Staff Regulations, in the version in force in March 2001, must
         be construed as meaning that the maximum period of employment is six years (second indent) or eight years (third indent),
         including the period of the first contract.
      
      (see paras 61-63)
      See:
      29/69 Stauder [1969] ECR 419, para. 3; 9/79 Koschniske [1979] ECR 2717, para. 6; C-219/95 P Ferriere Nord v Commission [1997] ECR I‑4411, para. 15
      
      T-68/97 Neumann and Neumann-Schölles v Commission [1999] ECR-SC I‑A‑193 and II‑1005, para. 79