Pilar Angé Serrano and Others v European Parliament.
Date: 2010-03-04
31. With regard to acquired rights, the General Court recalled that an official cannot claim such a right unless the facts giving rise to that right arose under a particular set of Staff Regulations prior to their amendment (Case 28/74 Gillet  v Commission  [1975] ECR 463, paragraph 5). In a system such as that of the Community civil service, in which the hierarchy between officials is subject to alterations, the General Court pointed out that the classification in a higher grade which, at a given moment in their career, certain officials held vis-à-vis others does not constitute an acquired right which must be protected by the provisions of the Staff Regulations in force after 1 May 2004.
82. According to the case-law of the Court of Justice the legal link between an official and the administration is based upon the Staff Regulations and not upon a contract. Thus, the rights and obligations of officials may, subject to compliance with the requirements of Community law, be altered at any time by the legislature ( Centeno Mediavilla and Others  v Commission , paragraph 60 and the case-law cited).
83. It is well established that amending legislation, such as the regulations amending the Staff Regulations, applies, unless otherwise provided, to the future consequences of situations that arose under the previous legislation (see, to that effect, Case C-60/98 Butterfly Music  [1999] ECR I-3939, paragraph 24, and Centeno Mediavilla and Others  v Commission , paragraph 61).
84. That is so except for situations originating and becoming definitive under the previous legislation which create acquired rights (see, to this effect, Case 68/69 Brock  [1970] ECR 171, paragraph 7; Case 143/73 SOPAD  [1973] ECR 1433, paragraph 8; Case 270/84 Licata  v ESC  [1986] ECR 2305, paragraph 31 and Centeno Mediavilla and Others  v Commission , paragraph 62). A right is considered to be acquired when the event giving rise to it occurred before the legislative amendment (see Centeno Mediavilla and Others  v Commission , paragraph 63).
93. Individuals cannot rely on the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations in order to oppose the application of a new legislative provision, especially in a sphere in which the legislature enjoys a considerable degree of latitude (Case C‑284/94 Spain  v Council  [1998] ECR I‑7309, paragraph 43 and Centeno Mediavilla and Others  v Commission , paragraph 91).
99. As is clear from the Court’s settled case-law, a breach of the principle of equal treatment, applicable to the law relating to the employment of Community officials, occurs when two categories of person whose factual and legal circumstances disclose no essential difference are treated differently at the time of their recruitment and that difference in treatment is not objectively justified (see Case C-459/98 P Martínez del Peral Cagigal  v Commission  [2001] ECR I‑135, paragraph 50 and Centeno Mediavilla and Others  v Commission , paragraph 76).
100. It is also well established that, in adopting applicable rules, especially in the sphere of the Community civil service, the Community legislature is obliged to observe the general principle of equal treatment ( Centeno Mediavilla and Others  v Commission , paragraph 78).
101. As the General Court correctly pointed out in paragraph 142 of the judgment under appeal, it is also settled case‑law that the principle of equality is infringed where two different situations are treated identically (see, to that effect, Case C‑227/04 P Lindorfer  v Council  [2007] ECR I‑6767, paragraph 63).
108. Two officials who are reclassified in a higher grade under different rules of the Staff Regulations are, accordingly, in different situations (see, by analogy, Centeno Mediavilla and Others  v Commission , paragraphs 79 and 80).