CELEX: 62014FA0112
Language: en
Date: 2015-07-16 00:00:00
Title: Case F-112/14: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (1st Chamber) of 16 July 2015 — EJ v Commission (Civil service — Officials — Reform of the Staff Regulations — Regulation No 1023/2013 — Types of posts — Transitional rules concerning assignment to types of posts — Article 30(2) of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations — Lawyer administrators in grade AD 13 of the Commission’s Legal Service — Situation of ‘legal advisers’ and ‘members of the Legal Service’ — Methods of accessing grade AD 13 under the 2004 Staff Regulations — Promotion under Article 45 of the Staff Regulations — Appointment pursuant to Article 29 of the Staff Regulations — Assignment to the types of posts ‘Adviser or equivalent’ and ‘Administrator in transition’ — Act adversely affecting an official — Concept of ‘significant responsibilities’ — Concept of ‘special responsibilities’ — Equal treatment — Opportunity for promotion to grade AD 14 — Legitimate expectations — Principle of legal certainty)

24.8.2015   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 279/51
            
         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (1st Chamber) of 16 July 2015 — EJ v Commission
   (Case F-112/14) (1)
   
   ((Civil service - Officials - Reform of the Staff Regulations - Regulation No 1023/2013 - Types of posts - Transitional rules concerning assignment to types of posts - Article 30(2) of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations - Lawyer administrators in grade AD 13 of the Commission’s Legal Service - Situation of ‘legal advisers’ and ‘members of the Legal Service’ - Methods of accessing grade AD 13 under the 2004 Staff Regulations - Promotion under Article 45 of the Staff Regulations - Appointment pursuant to Article 29 of the Staff Regulations - Assignment to the types of posts ‘Adviser or equivalent’ and ‘Administrator in transition’ - Act adversely affecting an official - Concept of ‘significant responsibilities’ - Concept of ‘special responsibilities’ - Equal treatment - Opportunity for promotion to grade AD 14 - Legitimate expectations - Principle of legal certainty))
   (2015/C 279/64)
   Language of the case: French
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicant: EJ (represented by: S. Orlandi, lawyer)
   
      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall, C. Ehrbar and G. Gattinara, acting as Agents)
   
      Intervener in support of the defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bauer and M. Veiga, acting as Agents)
   
      Re:
   
   Action for annulment of the appointing authority’s decisions to assign the applicants, in accordance with the new rules on career and promotion applicable after the reform of the Staff Regulations of 1 January 2014, to the type of post ‘Senior Administrator in transition’, thereby depriving them, in their view, of the opportunity of promotion to grade AD 14, and for a declaration that Article 30(3) of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations is unlawful.
   
      Operative part of the judgment
   
   The Tribunal:
   
               1.
            
            
               Annuls the individual decisions, as evidenced by a note added after 1 January 2014 to the applicants’ individual computerised files, adopted by the appointing authority of the European Commission, assigning EJ and the other applicants whose anonymised names are set out in the annex hereto to the post which within the European Commission is entitled ‘Senior Administrator in transition’ and corresponds to the Staff Regulations type of post ‘Administrator in transition’;
            
         
               2.
            
            
               Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by EJ and the other applicants whose anonymised names are set out in the annex hereto;
            
         
               3.
            
            
               Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs.
            
         
      (1)  OJ C 26, 26.01.2015, p. 47.