CELEX: 62008FJ0054
Language: en
Date: 2009-07-07 00:00:00
Title: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 7 July 2009. # Marjorie Danielle Bernard v European Police Office (Europol). # Public service. # Case F-54/08.

JUDGMENT OF THE CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL
      (First Chamber)
      7 July 2009
      Case F-54/08
      Marjorie Danielle Bernard
      v
      European Police Office (Europol)
      (Civil service – Staff of Europol – Final termination of service – Non‑renewal of contract – Manifest error of assessment – Measure of organisation of procedure – No need to adjudicate)
      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 Ms Bernard seeks, first, annulment of the decision of the Director of Europol of 31 July 2007 refusing to renew her
         contract beyond 31 May 2008 and of the decision of the Director of Europol of 29 February 2008 rejecting her prior complaint
         against the abovementioned decision of 31 July 2007, then, disclosure of the end-of-probationary period report of 25 February
         2004, and finally, an order for Europol to pay the costs.
      
      Held: There is no longer any need to rule on the application for disclosure of the end-of-probationary period report of 25 February
         2004. The decision of 31 July 2007 by which the Director of Europol refused to renew the applicant’s contract beyond 31 May
         2008 is annulled. Europol is ordered to pay the costs.
      
      Summary
      Officials – Members of the temporary staff – Recruitment – Renewal of a fixed-term contract – Administration's discretion
            – Staff of Europol
      (Europol Staff Regulations, Art. 6)
      The administration enjoys a wide discretion with regard to the renewal of fixed-term contracts of members of the temporary
         staff, and review by the Community judicature must be confined to ascertaining that there was no manifest error or misuse
         of powers.
      
      However, when the administration introduced, by an internal directive, a special system designed to ensure transparency in
         the procedures for renewing contracts, the adoption of that system was tantamount to a voluntary curb on the institution’s
         discretion, and it had the effect of altering the initial system relating to contract staff, characterised by the insecure
         nature of the fixed-term contracts, into a system in which the principle was to renew the contracts under certain conditions.
         A decision of a Community institution communicated to all its staff and setting out the criteria and procedure for the renewal
         or non-renewal of contracts constitutes an internal directive which must, as such, be regarded as a rule of conduct which
         the administration imposes on itself and from which it may not depart without specifying the reasons for doing so, since otherwise
         the principle of equality of treatment would be infringed.
      
      Because Europol introduced, by an internal directive, a special system in which the principle was to renew contracts under
         certain conditions, including the condition that the professional performance of members of staff, assessed on the basis of
         the annual evaluation report, had to be at least satisfactory, a decision refusing to renew a contract on the ground that
         the staff member’s professional performance was unsatisfactory, whereas he had obtained satisfactory marks overall in the
         evaluation reports, is vitiated by a manifest error of assessment.
      
      (see paras 46-48, 50, 51, 53)
      See:
      T-258/03 Mausolf v Europol [2005] ECR-SC I‑A‑45 and II‑189, paras 23, 25, 26, 47-49