CELEX: 62014FO0022(02)
Language: en
Date: 2016-06-27 00:00:00
Title: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 27 June 2016.#Valéria Anna Gyarmathy v European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction.#Amicable settlement of the proceedings — Article 91(2) of the Rules of Procedure — Agreement of the parties out of court — Removal from the register.#Case F-22/14.

ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE SECOND CHAMBER OF THE EUROPEAN UNION CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL
27 June 2016 (*)
(Amicable settlement of the proceedings — Article 91(2) of the Rules of Procedure — Agreement of the parties out of court — Removal from the register)
In Case F‑22/14,
ACTION brought under Article 270 TFEU,

Valéria Anna Gyarmathy, former member of the temporary staff of the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction, residing in Győr (Hungary), represented initially by L. Levi and M. Vandenbussche, lawyers, and subsequently by A. Véghely, lawyer,
applicant,
v

European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA), represented by D. Storti and F. Pereyra, acting as Agents, and by B. Wägenbaur, lawyer,
defendant,
THE PRESIDENT OF THE SECOND CHAMBER OF THE CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL
makes the following

Order

1        By application received at the Registry of the Civil Service Tribunal on 26 May 2014, Ms Anna Gyarmathy brought the present action seeking annulment of several decisions adopted by the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (‘the EMCDDA’) concerning a request for assistance in respect of alleged psychological harassment and the decision not to renew her contract as a member of the temporary staff. The applicant also seeks compensation for the material and non-material damage which she claims to have suffered as a result of the contested decisions.

2        By letter of 20 May 2015, the Registry of the Tribunal sent the parties a proposal from the Judge-Rapporteur providing a potential basis for the negotiation of an amicable settlement, inviting the parties to submit their observations in that regard by 3 June 2015.

3        Following various letters from the parties reporting progress made in the negotiations and requesting the Tribunal on each occasion for a further extension of the deadline, by letter of 10 June 2015 the Tribunal asked the parties to inform it of the result of those negotiations by 25 June 2015.

4        By letter of 24 June 2015, the lawyers who initially represented the applicant informed the Tribunal that they were no longer representing her in the present case.

5        By letter of 25 June 2015, the EMCDDA informed the Tribunal that, at that stage, the parties had not yet reached an agreement.

6        By application received at the Registry on 28 July 2015, the applicant asked to be granted legal aid, pursuant to Article 110 of the Rules of Procedure, with a view to continuing with the proceedings in the present case, without indicating the name of the lawyer by whom she wished to be represented, and requested the Tribunal to apply Article 112(3) of the Rules of Procedure.

7        By order of 23 November 2015 in Gyarmathy v EMCDDA (F‑22/14 AJ-II), the Tribunal granted the applicant legal aid for a maximum amount of EUR 3 000 in respect of the oral procedure only.

8        In response to a request from the Registry, the Közigazgatási és Igazságügyi Minisztérium (now the Ministry of Justice of Hungary) sent the Tribunal a list of lawyers capable of representing the applicant in the present case. The Registry contacted several of the lawyers whose names appeared on that list, but the applicant did not designate a lawyer to represent her.

9        Meanwhile, on 22 February 2016 the EMCDDA informed the Tribunal that the parties had reached an agreement bringing an end to the dispute. Several documents were appended to that letter, including the text of an agreement signed by the applicant in person on 11 February 2016 and by the Director of the EMCDDA on 15 February 2016 (‘the agreement between the parties’). That agreement also concerned the costs incurred by the parties in the present case.

10      It is apparent from that agreement that, inter alia, the applicant undertook to inform the Tribunal that she was abandoning her claims in the present case.

11      On 29 March 2016, the applicant sent the Tribunal a mandate, dated 7 March 2016, designating Ms Véghely as her representative in the present case.

12      By letter of 30 March 2016, the applicant confirmed to the Tribunal that there was an agreement between the parties. Nevertheless, in that same letter she asked the Tribunal to annul the decision of the Director of the EMCDDA of 11 September 2012, to declare her claim for damages inadmissible owing to the Tribunal’s lack of jurisdiction and to refer that claim to the national courts having jurisdiction, and to dismiss the remainder of her application in accordance with the agreement between the parties.

13      By letter of 8 April 2016, the Registry informed the parties that, since the applicant had not abandoned all her claims, the Tribunal considered that an agreement had not been reached and was planning to hold a hearing on 10 May 2016.

14      By letter of 18 April 2016, the EMCDDA informed the Tribunal that it had complied with all its obligations under the agreement between the parties. In addition, it contended that the applicant had already applied for annulment of the decision of the Director of the EMCDDA of 11 September 2012 in the case decided by the judgment of 18 May 2015 in Gyarmathy v EMCDDA (F‑79/13, EU:F:2015:49), by which the Tribunal dismissed that application.

15      By letter from the Registry of 26 April 2016, the Tribunal asked the applicant to submit her observations on the EMCDDA’s letter of 18 April 2016.

16      The applicant replied by letter of 3 May 2016, the first three paragraphs of which are worded as follows:
‘1. ... the applicant ... hereby confirms the receipt of the total agreed settlement amount and states, again, and in line with the settlement agreement [between the parties] that she has no further claims against the defendant.
2. The defendant refers to paragraph 7 of the settlement agreement [between the parties], settling all current and future mutual claims. [That reference], again, is true and the applicant has never disputed the fact that it was agreed between the parties. In fact, the applicant has sent, as agreed, a copy of the referred settlement agreement [between the parties] annexed to her letter of [30] March 2016 to the Civil Service Tribunal ... 
3. Accordingly, the defendant came to the conclusion that paragraph 7 of the settlement agreement [between the parties] rules out any continuation of Case F‑22/14. The applicant fully shares the defendant’s view in that regard and her letter of [30] March 2016 contains no request addressed to the Civil Service Tribunal, either explicit or implicit, that could be interpreted as a motion to continue the case’.

17      However in paragraphs 4 et seq. of her letter of 3 May 2016 the applicant suggests that the case be closed in a way other than by an order for removal from the register, namely by ‘a reasoned injunction or judgment’, by which the Tribunal should (i) reject her claim for compensation for the material and non-material damage suffered and (ii) annul the decision of the Chairman of the EMCDDA Management Board of 13 May 2013 and the decision of the Director of the EMCDDA of 25 June 2013.

18      The Tribunal recalls that, pursuant to Article 91(2) of the Rules of Procedure, where the applicant and the defendant notify the Tribunal that they have reached an agreement out of court as to the resolution of the dispute and state that they abandon all claims, the President is to order the case to be removed from the register.

19      In the present case, the parties notified the Tribunal that they had reached an agreement, and it can clearly be seen from the first three paragraphs of the applicant’s letter of 3 May 2016 that she is abandoning all claims in the present case.

20      Consequently, it is necessary, in accordance with Article 91(2) of the Rules of Procedure, to remove the present case from the register of the Civil Service Tribunal, as the removal of the case is the only possible outcome when the conditions relating to the existence of an agreement between the parties and the abandonment of all claims have been met.

21      Furthermore, in her letter of 3 May 2016, the applicant asks the Tribunal whether it is possible to pay her lawyer the sum of EUR 3 000 laid down in the order of 23 November 2015 in Gyarmathy v EMCDDA (F‑22/14 AJ-II), explaining that that lawyer has helped to conclude the agreement between the parties and has submitted two procedural documents.

22      In that regard, the Tribunal points out that it may not issue injunctions to administrative authorities (judgment of 17 March 2016 in Pasqualetti v Commission, F‑2/15, EU:F:2016:64, paragraph 66), including those of the Court of Justice of the European Union.

23      Nevertheless, for the sake of completeness, it should be borne in mind that, according to point 3 of the operative part of the order of 23 November 2015 in Gyarmathy v EMCDDA (F‑22/14 AJ-II), an amount corresponding to the costs incurred by the applicant is to be paid to the lawyer instructed to represent her in Case F‑22/14, on the basis of supporting documents, up to a threshold of EUR 3 000 in respect of the oral procedure only, and that, according to paragraph 37 of that order, the sum of EUR 3 000 was justified only by the need for the lawyer to represent the applicant during the oral procedure by preparing for a hearing.

24      However, first of all, the Tribunal did not hold a hearing in the present case, and second, the lawyer representing the applicant did not intervene, according to the mandate produced by the applicant herself, until 7 March 2016, whereas the agreement between the parties had been signed by the applicant on 11 February 2016. Since 7 March 2016, that lawyer has filed two documents, namely the letter of 30 March 2016, which consists of six pages and includes four annexes, and the letter of 3 May 2016, which consists of seven pages. However, according to the agreement between the parties, it was for the applicant to abandon all her claims in the present case, which she could have done with a simple notice of withdrawal.

25      Under Article 91(3) of the Rules of Procedure, where there is an agreement between the parties as to costs, a decision is to be made in accordance with that agreement.

26      Accordingly, the costs in the present case are to be borne by the parties according to the terms of their agreement.
On those grounds,
THE PRESIDENT OF THE SECOND CHAMBER OF THE CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL
hereby orders:
1.      Case F‑22/14, Gyarmathy v European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction, is removed from the register of the Tribunal following the agreement made between the parties.

2.      The parties are to bear the costs according to the terms of their agreement.

Luxembourg, 27 June 2016.

W. Hakenberg
 
      K. Bradley

Registrar
 
      President

* Language of the case: English.