Europäische Schule München v Silvana Oberto and Barbara O´Leary.
Date: 2015-03-11
29. In this regard, it should be borne in mind that an agreement entered into by the Council of the European Union under Articles 217 TFEU and 218 TFEU is, as far as the European Union is concerned, an act of an EU institution within the meaning of point (b) of the first paragraph of Article 267 TFEU and, as from its entry into force, the provisions of such an agreement form an integral part of the EU legal system; within the framework of that system the Court has jurisdiction to give preliminary rulings concerning the interpretation of such an agreement (see judgment in Demirel , 12/86, EU:C:1987:400, paragraph 7).
32. First of all, it should be borne in mind that the European schools system is a sui generis  system, which achieves, by means of an international agreement, a form of cooperation between the Member States and between those States and the European Union (see judgment in Miles and Others , C‑196/09, EU:C:2011:388, paragraph 39).
33. It also follows from the case-law that the European schools are an international organisation which, despite the functional links which it has with the European Union, remains formally distinct from it and from its Member States (see, to that effect, judgment in Miles and Others , EU:C:2011:388, paragraph 42).
34. Therefore, although the Convention defining the Statute of the European Schools constitutes, as far as the European Union is concerned, an act of one of the institutions of the European Union, within the meaning of point (b) of the first paragraph of Article 267 TFEU, it is also governed by international law and, more specifically, as regards its interpretation, by the international law of treaties (see, to that effect, judgment in Brita , C‑386/08, EU:C:2010:91, paragraph 39).
36. It follows that the rules laid down in the Vienna Convention apply to an agreement concluded between the Member States and an international organisation, such as the Convention defining the Statute of the European Schools, in so far as those rules are an expression of general international customary law. Consequently, that convention must be interpreted in accordance with those rules (see, to that effect, judgment in Brita , EU:C:2010:91, paragraph 41).
37. Pursuant to Article 31 of the Vienna Convention, which expresses general customary international law (see, to that effect, judgment in Commission  v Finland , C‑118/07, EU:C:2009:715, paragraph 39), a treaty must be interpreted in good faith in accordance with the ordinary meaning to be given to the terms of that treaty in their context and in the light of its object and purpose (see judgment in Brita , EU:C:2010:91, paragraph 43).
54. Moreover, the Court has already held, in the context of a dispute between a member of the auxiliary staff and the Commission, that the ‘act adversely affecting’ that person, within the meaning of Article 90(2) of those Regulations, was, in that case, the contract of employment (see judgment in Castagnoli  v Commission , 329/85, EU:C:1987:352, paragraph 11).
72. So far as the Complaints Board of the European Schools is concerned, the Court has held that it satisfies all of the requirements which must be met in order for a body to be recognised as ‘a court or tribunal’ for the purposes of Article 267 TFEU, in particular that it is established by law, is permanent, its jurisdiction is compulsory, its procedure is inter partes , it applies rules of law and it is independent, with the exception of the requirement that it be a court or tribunal of one of the Member States (see, to that effect, judgment in Miles and Others , EU:C:2011:388, paragraphs 37 to 39).
73. Next, it should be borne in mind that, under Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, the principle of effective judicial protection does not afford a right of access to a second level of jurisdiction but only to a court or tribunal (see judgment in Sánchez Morcillo and Abril García , C‑169/14, EU:C:2014:2099, paragraph 36).
74. Finally, although the Court stated in the judgment in Miles and Others  (EU:C:2011:388, paragraphs 43 to 45) that it did not have jurisdiction to answer the question raised by the Complaints Board of the European Schools because the latter does not constitute a ‘court or tribunal of a Member State’ within the meaning of Article 267 TFEU, it also accepted the possibility, or indeed the obligation, which that Complaints Board has to refer a question to the Court in the course of a dispute between teachers seconded to a European school and that school, in which it is appropriate to apply the general principles of EU law, but that it was for the Member States to reform the system of judicial protection established by the Convention defining the Statute of the European Schools currently in force.