CELEX: 62003TJ0055
Language: en
Date: 2004-10-26
Title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) of 26  October  2004. # Philippe Brendel v Commission of the European Communities. # Officials - Action for damages. # Case T-55/03.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Second Chamber)
      26 October 2004
      Case T-55/03
      Philippe Brendel
      v
      Commission of the European Communities
      (Officials – Appointment – Classification in grade and step – Additional seniority – Action for damages)
      Full text in French II - 0000
      Application:         first, for annulment of the Commission’s decision classifying the applicant in Grade A 7, step 2, and, second, for damages
         to compensate the damage allegedly suffered by the applicant.
      
      Held:         The Commission is ordered to pay default interest on the sum consisting of the difference between the remuneration payable
         to the applicant corresponding to Grade A 7, step 3, and the remuneration corresponding to Grade A 7, step 2, from 16 April
         2001; this interest is to be computed as from the various dates on which each payment under the Staff Regulations ought to
         have been made until payment has been made in full. The rate of interest to be applied is to be calculated on the basis of
         the rate fixed by the European Central Bank for principal refinancing operations applicable during the various phases of the
         period concerned, increased by two points. There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the claim for payment of the difference
         between the remuneration owed to the applicant corresponding to Grade A 7, step 3, and the remuneration corresponding to Grade
         A 7, step 2, from 16 March 2001. The remainder of the action is dismissed. The Commission is ordered to pay its own costs
         and three quarters of the applicant’s costs. The applicant is to pay a quarter of his own costs.
      
      Summary
      1.     Officials – Actions – Admissibility – Act replacing the contested act in the course of proceedings – Obligation to follow
            the pre-litigation procedure – Exception
      (Staff Regulations, Arts 90 and 91)
      2.     Officials – Recruitment – Appointment in grade and classification in step – Appointment to the higher grade of the career
            bracket – Appointing authority’s discretion – Review by the Court – Limits – Obligation, in certain cases, to consider the
            possibility of making such an appointment – Right to be appointed to the higher grade of the career bracket – None 
      (Staff Regulations, Art. 31(2))
      3.     Officials – Recruitment – Appointment in grade and classification in step – Appointment to the higher grade of the career
            bracket – Determination of level of professional experience – Taking into account of the category of the post previously occupied
            – Evidence by the official concerned of a higher actual level – Whether permissible 
      (Staff Regulations, Art. 31(2)) 
      4.     Officials – Recruitment – Appointment in grade and classification in step – Appointment to the higher grade of the career
            bracket – Obligation to state reasons – Scope 
      5.     Officials – Administration’s duty to have regard for the welfare of its servants – Scope – Limits 
      6.     Officials – Non-contractual liability of the institutions – Classification in grade on recruitment effected unlawfully – Subsequent
            retrospective rectification – Damage resulting from delay in payment of remuneration  – Payment of default interest 
      1.     By virtue of the requirements of procedural economy, when a contested act is replaced, in the course of proceedings, by an
         act having the same subject-matter, the latter constitutes a new factor enabling the applicants to amend their pleadings.
      
      On the other hand, it is clear from Articles 90 and 91 of the Staff Regulations that the action directed against an act adversely
         affecting the applicant, consisting in a decision taken by the appointing authority, is admissible only if the official has
         previously submitted a complaint to the appointing authority and if the complaint has been rejected by express or implied
         decision, and the same applies to a new decision replacing a previous decision, following a review.
      
      However, where the lodging of the application, initially directed against an act which has in the meantime been replaced,
         was preceded by a complaint meeting the requirements of Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations, and where the act now contested,
         which has retrospectively replaced the original act in the course of proceedings, is based on the same considerations of fact
         and law as the act against which the application was originally directed, it must be considered that the obligation incumbent
         on officials, observance of which is, under Article 91(2), a condition of the admissibility of the action, to lodge a complaint
         with the appointing authority about the acts adversely affecting them has been complied with as regards the new contested
         act too. 
      
      (see paras 50-52, 56)
      See: 14/81 Alpha Steel v Commission [1982] ECR 749, para. 8; 293/87 Vainker v Parliament [1989] ECR 23, para. 7; T-23/96 De Persio v Commission [1998] ECR-SC I-A-483 and II-1413, para. 32; T-161/00 Tsarnavas v Commission [2001] ECR-SC I-A-155 and II-721, para. 30
      
      2.     Article 31(2) of the Staff Regulations provides for the possibility of making exceptions to the principle that all officials
         are recruited in the starting grade of their category. The decision on classification based on Article 31(2) of the Staff
         Regulations falls, subject to any conditions in respect of classification which the appointing authority may have imposed
         on itself in the vacancy notice, within the very wide discretion of that authority. In the course of its review in that regard,
         the Court cannot substitute its assessment for that of the appointing authority. It must confine itself to verifying that
         there has been no infringement of essential procedural requirements, that the appointing authority has not based its decision
         on incorrect or incomplete material facts and that the decision is not vitiated by misuse of powers, a manifest error of assessment
         or an inadequate statement of grounds.
      
      The appointing authority is required, in special circumstances such as in the case of a candidate with exceptional qualifications,
         specifically to assess the possible application of Article 31(2) of the Staff Regulations, as such an obligation arises in
         particular where the specific needs of the service require the recruitment of a specially qualified official or where the
         person recruited has exceptional qualifications and requests the application of those provisions. However, even where newly
         recruited officials fulfil the conditions for classification in the higher grade of the career bracket, they do not thereby
         have an automatic right to such classification.
      
      (see paras 60-61)
      See: C-298/93 P Klinke v Court of Justice [1994] ECR I-3009, para. 31; T-17/95 Alexopoulou v Commission [1995] ECR-SC I-A-227 and II-683, para. 21; T‑195/96 Alexopoulou v Commission [1998] ECR-SC I-A-51 and II-117, paras 38, 39 and 44, upheld on appeal in C-155/98 P Alexopoulou  v Commission [1999] ECR I-4069, and the case-law cited therein; T-381/00 Wasmeier v Commission [2002] ECR-SC I-A-125 and II-677, para. 56; T-133/02 Chawdhry v Commission [2003] ECR-SC I-A-329 and II-1617, para. 44
      
      3.     The administration does not exceed the limits of its wide discretion as regards classification where, in order to determine
         the level of the experience acquired by an official before taking up his duties, it refers to the category of the post previously
         held. However, for the purposes of his classification on recruitment, an official must be allowed to show that the actual
         level of the duties he carried out in the institution was higher than that of the category to which he belonged.
      
      (see paras 93-94)
      See: T-79/98 Carrasco Benítez v EMEA [1999] ECR-SC I-A-29 and II-127, paras 45 and 46
      
      4.     The obligation to state reasons for a decision on classification may reasonably be satisfied at the stage when a decision
         is taken on a complaint, and it is sufficient for the statement of reasons to relate to the satisfaction of the legal conditions
         which under the Staff Regulations govern the regularity of the classification procedure, there being no need to reveal the
         comparative assessment which the appointing authority has undertaken. It is sufficient that the appointing authority inform
         the official concerned of the relevant individual ground for the decision taken concerning him. The institution is not required
         to provide detailed statistics on the classification in grade and step of other officials who passed a comparable competition.
         First, such details are not relevant for verifying that the qualifications of the person concerned were properly assessed,
         given the specific nature of that assessment and its limitation to the case in point.
      
      (see paras 120, 123-124)
      See: T-17/95 Alexopoulou v Commission, cited above, para. 27; T-230/99 McAuley v Council [2001] ECR-SC I-A-127 and II-583, para. 52, and the case-law cited therein; Chawdhry v Commission, cited above, paras 119 to 122
      
      5.     The administration’s duty to have regard for the welfare of its servants reflects the balance of reciprocal rights and obligations
         established by the Staff Regulations in the relationship between the official authority and the civil servants. A particular
         consequence of this duty is that when the official authority takes a decision concerning the situation of an official or other
         member of staff it should take into consideration all the factors which may affect its decision and that when doing so it
         should take into account not only the interests of the service but also those of the official concerned. The protection of
         the rights and interests of officials is, however, subject to compliance with the rules in force. 
      
      (see para. 133)
      See: T-203/97 Forvass v Commission [1999] ECR-SC I-A-129 and II-705, paras 53 and 54, and the case-law cited therein
      
      6.     An official whose classification in grade was initially effected unlawfully before being rectified by a retrospective decision
         is entitled to default interest on the sums due as a result of that rectification as of the date when the appointing authority
         had at its disposal all the information needed for an appropriate classification.
      
      (see paras 153-155)