natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Efter at Retten havde bemærket, at Fællesskabernes retsinstanser med henblik på at sikre den effektive virkning af en annullationsdom i sagsøgerens interesse kunne gøre brug af den fulde prøvelsesret, de har fået tillagt i tvister, der angår pengebeløb, og endda af egen drift kunne tilpligte den sagsøgte institution at betale en godtgørelse eller opfordre den til at søge en rimelig løsning på sagen, opfordrede Retten dog — for på hensigtsmæssig måde at beskytte Marie-Claude Girardots rettigheder — parterne til at indgå en aftale om en rimelig økonomisk godtgørelse i anledning af det ulovlige afslag på hendes ansøgninger.
Nevertheless, having observed that the Community courts have the power, in order to ensure that an annulment by the Court serves some useful purpose for the applicant, to make use of the unlimited jurisdiction conferred on them in proceedings concerning financial matters and to order, of its own motion, the defendant to make payment of compensation or request that it find an equitable outcome as appropriate, the Court of First Instance, in order adequately to protect Mrs Girardot’s rights, requested the parties to seek an agreement on fair financial compensation for the unlawful rejection of her applications.
I denne forbindelse præciserede Retten, at der ved fastsættelsen af denne godtgørelse skulle tages hensyn til, at Marie-Claude Girardot ikke længere kunne deltage i en eventuel ny procedure, hvis forskriftsmæssige forløb det påhviler Kommissionen at varetage, eftersom hun, idet den kontrakt som midlertidigt ansat, hun havde indgået med Kommissionen, var udløbet uden at være blevet fornyet, hverken var i stand til eller ikke engang havde ret til at tilkendegive sin interesse for et opslag om »en særlig forskerstilling«.
The Court of First Instance stated that, in quantifying that compensation, account should be taken of the fact that Mrs Girardot could no longer take part in the next procedure, which the Commission would take care to conduct in accordance with the rules, since, because the temporary staff contract attaching her to the Commission had come to an end and had not been renewed, she was neither in a position nor entitled to express her interest in vacant posts by responding to a ‘specific research’ vacancy notice.
Da man ikke nåede frem til en aftale, opfordrede Retten parterne til at forelægge deres i tal opgjorte påstande inden tre måneder efter mellemdommens afsigelse (mellemdommens præmis 89-91).
If agreement could not be reached, the Court of First Instance stated that the parties were to submit their estimates of damages with supporting figures within three months from delivery of the interim judgment (paragraphs 89 to 91 of the interim judgment).
Da parterne ikke kunne nå frem til en aftale om størrelsen af en økonomisk godtgørelse, forelagde de Retten deres i tal opgjorte påstande den 6. september 2004.
Since the parties could not reach an agreement on the amount of fair financial compensation, they sent their submissions on the quantum of damages to the Court of First Instance on 6 September 2004.
Marie-Claude Girardot nedlagde påstand om, at Retten fastsatte størrelsen af den økonomiske godtgørelse med tillæg af renter til principalt 2 687 994 EUR, subsidiært til 432 887 EUR og endnu mere subsidiært til 250 248 EUR.
In her heads of claim, Mrs Girardot asked the Court of First Instance to set the amount of financial compensation, together with interest to be determined by the Court, as her principal claim, at EUR 2 687 994; in the alternative, at EUR 432 887 and, further in the alternative, at EUR 250 248.
Kommissionen nedlagde påstand om, at Retten fastsatte beløbet til 23 917,43 EUR, idet den, således som det fremgår af den appellerede doms præmis 45, fandt det rimeligt at tildele Marie-Claude Girardot »dels tre måneders nettoløn svarende til den mindste opsigelsesfrist, der er fastsat i [ansættelsesvilkårenes artikel 47, stk. 2, litra a)], dvs. 18 917,43 EUR som erstatning for den fortabte mulighed for at opnå én af de otte stillinger, dels 5 000 EUR for den fortabte mulighed for at deltage i en ny ansættelsesprocedure«.
The Commission, for its part, asked the Court of First Instance to set that amount at EUR 23 917.43, considering it reasonable to award to Mrs Girardot, as can be read in paragraph 45 of the judgment under appeal, ‘first, payment of three months’ basic salary to correspond to the minimum period of notice laid down in [Article 47(2)(a) of the Conditions of employment] namely EUR 18 917.43, in compensation for loss of the opportunity to obtain one or other of the eight posts in question, and, secondly, EUR 5 000 in compensation for loss of the opportunity to take part in a further procedure for the filling of vacant posts’.
Det nævnte beløb skulle tillægges de morarenter, der var forfaldet mellem tidspunktet for mellemdommens afsigelse og det faktiske tidspunkt for beløbets betaling, samt én euro som symbolsk erstatning for den ikke-økonomiske skade.
That amount was to be supplemented by compensatory interest due between delivery of the interim judgment and actual payment of the sum due, together with token damages of one euro in compensation for nonmaterial harm.
Efter at Retten havde gennemgået de forskellige former for skade, som Marie-Claude Girardot hævdede at have lidt, fastsatte den i den appellerede dom dels størrelsen af den økonomiske godtgørelse, Kommissionen skulle betale, til 92 785 EUR med tillæg af renter fra den 6. september 2004 med den af Den Europæiske Centralbank fastsatte rentesats for de vigtigste refinansieringstransaktioner, forhøjet med to procentpoint, dels blev Kommissionen pålagt at betale sagens omkostninger.
After examination of the various forms of damage claimed by Mrs Girardot the Court of First Instance, by the judgment under appeal, first, set the amount of the financial compensation payable by the Commission at EUR 92 785, together with interest payable from 6 September 2004 at the rate set by the ECB for main refinancing operations, plus two percentage points, and, secondly, ordered the Commission to pay the costs.
Hvad for det første angår det angivelige tab af en mulighed for ansættelse i en ledig stilling ved Kommissionen bemærkede Retten indledningsvis i den appellerede doms præmis 54, at de omtvistede afgørelser — henset til, at det var umuligt at genskabe den situation, der bestod før deres vedtagelse — utvivlsomt og uopretteligt berøvede Marie-Claude Girardot ikke blot hendes ret til at få sine ansøgninger behandlet af Kommissionen, men ligeledes muligheden for, at Kommissionen fandt hende egnet til én af stillingerne.
In relation to, first, the claimed loss of an opportunity to be recruited to a vacant post within the Commission, the Court of First Instance first stated, in paragraph 54 of the judgment under appeal, that the contested decisions had deprived Mrs Girardot, definitively and irreversibly, given the impossibility of restoring the position prior to their adoption, not only of the right to expect that her applications would be examined by the Commission, but also of the possibility that one of them would be accepted by the Commission.
Retten præciserede dernæst i dommens præmis 55 og 56, at den
The Court then stated, in paragraphs 55 and 56 of that judgment, that the loss of an opportunity to occupy a vacant post within a
KOMMISSIONEN MOD GIRARDOT fortabte mulighed for at besætte en ledig stilling ved en fællesskabsinstitution og at drage fordel af de økonomiske fordele, der knytter sig hertil, udgør et økonomisk tab, hvilket parterne var enige om.
Community institution and to receive the financial advantages attaching to such a post was damage which was material, as the parties had agreed.
Retten bemærkede endelig i dommens præmis 57 og 58, at det for at vurdere udstrækningen af det tab, der fulgte af den fortabte mulighed i dette tilfælde, var hensigtsmæssigt »at fastsætte forskellen mellem det vederlag, som Marie-Claude Girardot ville have oppebåret, såfremt hun havde opnået en af stillingerne, og det vederlag, hun rent faktisk oppebar som følge af det ulovlige afslag på hendes ansøgning, og i givet fald i form af en procentsats at vurdere, hvilken mulighed Marie-Claude Girardot havde for, at denne mulighed konkretiseredes«.
Lastly, the Court stated, in paragraphs 57 and 58 of the judgment under appeal, that, in order to assess the extent of the damage resulting from the loss of an opportunity as claimed in the present case, it was necessary to ‘determine the difference between the earnings which Mrs Girardot would have received if the chance that her applications would be successful had materialised and the earnings which she in fact received after the unlawful rejection of her applications, and then, if appropriate, to assess, as a percentage, what chance Mrs Girardot had that such an eventuality would materialise’.
Hvad angår først forskellen i vederlag fastslog Retten i den appellerede doms præmis 59, at dette kriterium var berettiget henset til den omstændighed, at selv om Marie-Claude Girardot havde fortabt en mulighed for at besætte én af disse stillinger og følgelig for at drage fordel af de dertil knyttede økonomiske fordele, var hun ikke uden beskæftigelse.
As regards, first, the difference in earnings, the Court of First Instance explained, in paragraph 59 of the judgment under appeal, that that criterion was justified by the fact that while Mrs Girardot had lost a chance of occupying one of those posts and, consequently, of obtaining the corresponding financial benefits, she had not remained without employment.
Med henblik på at fastslå størrelsen af en eventuel lønforskel fastsatte Retten først i den appellerede doms præmis 61-82 den periode, der skulle lægges til grund for sammenligningen mellem de økonomiske arbejdsvilkår, som Marie-Claude Girardot ville have draget fordel af, såfremt hun var blevet ansat af Kommissionen, og dem, hun rent faktisk havde.
In order to determine a possible difference in earnings, the Court of First Instance first established, in paragraphs 61 to 82 of the judgment under appeal, the period in which comparison was to be made between the financial terms of employment which Mrs Girardot would have enjoyed if she had been recruited by the Commission and those which she actually enjoyed.
Retten forkastede i denne forbindelse i dommens præmis 73-77 Kommissionens argument om, at den mulighed Marie-Claude Girardot havde fortabt, kun kunne afhjælpes ved tildeling af en rimelig økonomisk godtgørelse, hvis størrelse burde fastsættes til tre måneders nettoløn, svarende til det minimale opsigelsesvarsel i ansættelsesvilkårenes artikel 47, stk. 2, litra a).
The Court of First Instance rejected, in paragraphs 73 to 77 of that judgment, the Commission’s argument that reparation for Mrs Girardot’s loss of an opportunity could be achieved solely by the award of fair financial compensation amounting to the equivalent of payment of three months’ net salary, corresponding to the minimum notice period laid down in Article 47(2)(a) of the Conditions of employment.
Retten var nemlig af den opfattelse, at dette argument svarede til at hævde, at varigheden af den periode, hvorunder Marie-Claude Girardot var i Kommissionens tjeneste, hvis den havde ansat hende, var så hypotetisk, at det måtte antages, at Kommissionen ville have afsluttet hendes ansættelse straks efter, at den var begyndt, hvilket ikke var troværdigt.
The Court of First Instance held that that argument amounted to claiming that the length of time Mrs Girardot would have remained in the service of the Commission if it had recruited her was so hypothetical that it should be considered that the Commission terminated her employment immediately after its commencement, which was not credible.
Under disse omstændigheder fastslog Retten i den appellerede doms præmis 78, at for at tage hensyn til samtlige de muligheder for et ansættelsesforholds ophør, der er fastsat i ansættelsesvilkårenes artikel 47, stk. 2, og artikel 48-50, kunne den relevante periode efter ret og billighed fastsættes til fem år, inklusiv længden af opsigelsesvarslet, og denne periode skulle beregnes fra den dato, hvor Kommissionens udnævnelse af de
In those circumstances, in paragraph 78 of the judgment under appeal, the Court of First Instance held that, to take account of all the possibilities of termination of employment as laid down in Article 47(2) and Articles 48 to 50 of the Conditions of employment, the period to be considered might be set ex aequo et bono at five years, including the period of notice, running from the date of effective appointment of the candidates accepted by
Retten forkastede i øvrigt i den appellerede doms præmis 80 Marie-Claude Girardots argumenter vedrørende sandsynligheden for en udnævnelse til tjenestemand, idet denne omstændighed var behæftet med usikkerhed.
On the other hand, in paragraph 80 of the judgment under appeal, the Court of First Instance dismissed Mrs Girardot’s arguments relating to the probability of becoming a permanent official on the ground that that factor was not a matter of certainty.
Dernæst bestemte Retten i den appellerede doms præmis 83-95 udstrækningen af løntabet i denne periode.
The Court of First Instance then determined, in paragraphs 83 to 95 of the judgment under appeal, the extent of the loss of earnings over that period.
Da Marie-Claude Girardot ikke havde dokumenteret, hvilket vederlag, hun ville have opnået, såfremt en af hendes ansøgninger havde ført til en ansættelse, samt forløbet af dette vederlag, fastsatte Retten efter ret og billighed i præmis 86, at Marie-Claude Girardot ville have oppebåret en månedlig nettoløn, der i gennemsnit var lig med den sidste månedsløn, hun fik udbetalt fra Kommissionen, hvilket svarede til en indplacering i lønklasse A5, løntrin 4.
For that purpose, in paragraph 86 of that judgment, the Court of First Instance decided ex aequo et bono, in the absence of evidence produced by Mrs Girardot to enable the Court to determine the remuneration which would have been paid to her if her applications had been successful, and how that remuneration would have progressed, that Mrs Girardot would have received net monthly remuneration equivalent, on average, to the last remuneration paid to her by the Commission, which corresponded to a post in a grade A 5, step 4.
I denne forbindelse forkastede Retten i dommens præmis 85 Marie-Claude Girardots argument om, at hun ville være blevet indplaceret i lønklasse A4.
In paragraph 85 of that judgment, the Court of First Instance rejected Mrs Girardot’s argument that she would have been selected for a post in a grade A 4.
Hvad for det andet angår vurderingen af den fortabte mulighed undersøgte Retten — efter i den appellerede doms præmis 96 og 97 at have konstateret, at Marie-Claude Girardots ansøgninger opfyldte de betingelser, der krævedes for at blive taget i betragtning — i dommens præmis 98-122, om den mulighed, hun var blevet berøvet, kunne anses for at være sikker, forstået på den måde, at Marie-Claude Girardot ville have haft om ikke alle muligheder for at komme i betragtning til en af de omhandlede stillinger så i det mindste en realistisk mulighed for at komme i betragtning.
As regards, secondly, the assessment of the opportunity lost, the Court of First Instance, after making the finding, in paragraphs 96 and 97 of the judgment under appeal, that the applications submitted by Mrs Girardot satisfied the requisite conditions to be considered, examined, in paragraphs 98 to 122 of that judgment, whether the chance of which she had been deprived could be regarded as a certainty, in the sense that Mrs Girardot would have had, if not every chance of obtaining one of the posts in question, at least a strong chance of obtaining one.
Efter at Retten i dommens præmis 102-107 havde bemærket, at Marie-Claude Girardot på dette stadium under proceduren var den eneste ansøger til hver af disse stillinger, at hun havde en betydelig erfaring fra sin tidligere ansættelse ved Kommissionen, at man værdsatte hendes indsats, og at der var en tilstrækkelig overensstemmelse mellem hendes kvalifikationer og stillingsbeskrivelserne, fastslog den i dommens præmis 115-117 følgende:
Having established, in paragraphs 102 to 107 of that judgment, that Mrs Girardot was the only candidate for each of the posts at that stage of the procedure, that she could claim significant prior experience within the Commission, that her services were held in esteem and that her qualifications and the specification of the posts were sufficiently matched, the Court of First Instance ruled as follows in paragraphs 115 to 117 of that judgment:
Henset til ovenstående faktiske omstændigheder kan det ikke lægges til grund, at Kommissionen efter den første fase af ansættelsesproceduren i
Having regard to the foregoing facts, it cannot be held that, on conclusion of the first stage of the procedure for the filling of vacant posts laid down
KOMMISSIONEN MOD GIRARDOT vedtægtens artikel 29, stk. 1, […] kunne foretrække at udvide sine valgmuligheder […], med sikkerhed ville have accepteret én af Marie-Claude Girardots ansøgninger, og følgelig at denne sidstnævnte havde alle muligheder for opnå en kontrakt som midlertidigt ansat som omhandlet i ansættelsesvilkårenes artikel 2, litra d), og opnå de økonomiske fordele, der følger dermed.
COMMISSION v GIRARDOT by Article 29(1) of the Staff Regulations, the Commission, which might have preferred to have a wider choice …, would certainly have accepted one of Mrs Girardot’s applications and, consequently, that she had every chance of being awarded a temporary staff contract within the meaning of Article 2(d) of the Conditions of employment and of obtaining the financial advantages attaching to its performance.
Det må dog lægges til grund, at Marie-Claude Girardot i hvert fald havde en mulighed herfor, som hun blev berøvet som følge af, at hendes ansøgninger blev afslået af Kommissionen, uden der foreligger bevis for, at de blev behandlet af Kommissionen.
It may none the less be considered that Mrs Girardot had a strong chance in that regard, of which she was deprived because of the rejection of her applications by the Commission, which, on the evidence, did not examine them.
Under ansættelsesproceduren som omhandlet i vedtægtens artikel 29, stk. 1, litra b), havde en anden ansøger, der også var midlertidigt ansat, over for Kommissionen også tilkendegivet sin interesse i hver af de otte stillinger, som Marie-Claude Girardot ligeledes havde ansøgt om […] Kommissionen kunne vælge enten den ene eller den anden ansøger.
During the stage of the procedure for the filling of vacant posts laid down by Article 29(1)(b) of the Staff Regulations, another candidate, also a temporary staff member, expressed to the Commission his interest in each of the eight posts in which Mrs Girardot had also expressed her interest … . The Commission could accept one or other of those candidates.
Den havde imidlertid ligeledes adgang til ikke efter at have gennemgået disse at vælge nogen af de forhåndenværende ansøgere og overgå til den fase af proceduren, der er fastsat i vedtægtens artikel 29, stk. 1, litra c).
However, the Commission was also at liberty not to accept any of the competing applications, after having examined them, and to proceed to the stage of the procedure laid down by Article 29(1)(c) of the Staff Regulations … .
Endelig kunne den under overholdelse af de i retspraksis opstillede principper undlade at fuldføre proceduren […] Disse omstændigheder var egnet til at nedsætte Marie-Claude Girardots muligheder for at opnå en af de pågældende stillinger.
The Commission might finally, while respecting the principles stated in the case-law, not pursue that procedure … . Those factors are such as to reduce the chance which Mrs Girardot had that her application to occupy one of the posts in question would be successful.
Havde Marie-Claude Girardot imidlertid haft mulighed for at deltage i en ny ansættelsesprocedure, der blev iværksat efter en anullation af de afgørelser, hvorved hun fik afslag på sine ansøgninger […], ville hun have haft lejlighed til at tilkendegive sin interesse for andre stillinger af samme art, og henset til bl.a. de omstændigheder, der er nævnt i præmis 103-106 ovenfor, kunne hun eventuelt være kommet i betragtning til én af disse, hvilket Kommissionen ikke har bestridt.
However, if Mrs Girardot had been entitled to take part in a fresh procedure for the filling of vacant posts, held after annulment of the decisions rejecting her applications …, she might profitably have expressed her interest in other posts of the same kind and, having regard to, inter alia, the factors stated in paragraphs 103 to 106 above, might have been successful in one of them, a point which the Commission does not dispute.
Denne omstændighed kan forøge Marie-Claude Girardots mulighed for at komme i betragtning som midlertidigt ansat som omhandlet i ansættelsesvilkårenes artikel 2, litra d), til at beklæde en fast stilling aflønnet over forsknings- og investeringsbevillingerne i kategori A, hvortil der kræves videnskabelige kvalifikationer, i Kommissionens Generaldirektorat for Det Fælles Forskningscenter, Kommissionens GD »Forskning« eller GD »Informationssamfundet««.
That factor is such as to increase the chance which Mrs Girardot had that she would succeed in her application to obtain, as a temporary staff member within the meaning of Article 2(d) of the Conditions of employment, a permanent post paid from research and investment appropriations, corresponding to Category A, requiring scientific qualifications and vacant within the Joint Research Centre in the Commission’s “Research” DG or in its “Information Society” DG.’
Under disse omstændigheder konkluderede Retten i den appellerede doms præmis 118 og 119, at Marie-Claude Girardot havde en realistisk mulighed for at opnå en af stillingerne, og multiplicerede følgelig det løntab, hun havde lidt efter ret og billighed med 0,5.
In those circumstances, the Court of First Instance concluded, in paragraphs 118 and 119 of the judgment under appeal, that Mrs Girardot had a strong chance that her application would be successful and, consequently, the Court applied ex aequo et bono a multiplying factor of 0.5 to the loss of earnings she suffered.
I dommens præmis 120 afviste Retten at multiplicere tabet med 0,996 ifølge den metode, som Marie-Claude Girardot havde foreslået, idet denne metode indebar, at udstrækningen af den fortabte mulighed udelukkende afhang af det antal ansøgninger, den pågældende havde indgivet, og der herved således ikke ville blive taget hensyn til de øvrige ovenfor anførte omstændigheder.
In paragraph 120 of that judgment, the Court of First Instance declined to raise that factor to 0.996 in accordance with the method proposed by Mrs Girardot, since under that method the extent of the chance lost depended solely on the number of applications lodged by her while disregarding the other factors set out earlier in that judgment.
Hvad for det andet angår den øvrige skade, som Marie-Claude Girardot hævdede at have lidt, forkastede Retten i den appellerede doms præmis 123-125 disse krav som irrelevante med den begrundelse, at genstanden for den rimelige økonomiske godtgørelse henset til de annullationspåstande, hun havde nedlagt, var at erstatte opfyldelsen af mellemdommen og på passende vis beskytte hendes rettigheder ved efter ret og billighed at kompensere for den omstændighed, at det var umuligt for hende at retablere situationen før det ulovlige forhold, men ikke i mangel af en forudgående påstand om erstatning at rette op på enhver anden skade, som denne ulovlighed i øvrigt måtte have forvoldt.
As regards, secondly, the other losses claimed by Mrs Girardot, the Court of First Instance rejected them as irrelevant in paragraphs 123 to 125 of the judgment under appeal, on the ground that the objective of the fair financial compensation, having regard to Mrs Girardot’s applications for annulment, was to give effect to the interim judgment and adequately protect her rights by providing ex aequo et bono compensation for the impossibility of restoring the position prior to the unlawful act and was not, in the absence of a prior claim for damages, to make reparation for any other harm which that unlawful act might additionally have caused her.