natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
It was with the intention of expediting the written procedure that the Tribunal laid down the provision that any plea of inadmissibility by separate document, which, in practice, where a decision is reserved for the final judgment, may be liable to prolong the procedure, must be lodged within a month of service of the application, rather than within the two months allowed for the lodging of the defence.
Tak pogoj bi bil v nasprotju s samim ciljem zahteve za pomoč v primerih, ki so pogosti, ko je ta zahteva podana ravno zato, da bi se z zahtevkom na sodišču ob pomoči institucije doseglo, da se navedena ravnanja razglasijo za nezakonita. Vendar je hkrati nujno, da je navedena ravnanja mogoče „razumno opredeliti za ravnanja, ki ogrožajo pravice uradnikov“.
The Rules of Procedure of the Tribunal devote a chapter to amicable settlement, separate from that concerning measures of organisation of the procedure, thus suggesting that this procedure is distinct from normal judicial procedure.
S sodbo z dne 1. marca 2007 v zadevi Neirinck proti Komisiji (F-84/05) je Sodišče za uslužbence ugotovilo, da dejstvo, da je vodja službe imel stike s kandidatom za delovno mesto začasnega uslužbenca, da bi preučil možnosti za vključitev v svojo skupino, in da naj bi kandidatu izrazil željo o taki vključitvi, ne pomeni obljube zaposlitve.
The decision to seek an amicable settlement is a matter for the formation of the court which may instruct the judge-rapporteur to seek such a settlement.
Zato je Sodišče za uslužbence menilo, da kandidat za delovno mesto ne more zatrjevati, da je uprava pri njem ustvarila legitimna pričakovanja glede njegove zaposlitve.
Previously, under Article 88 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, in proceedings between the Communities and their servants an unsuccessful party had to bear only his own costs and not those of the institution, except where he unreasonably or vexatiously caused it to incur costs or where the circumstances were exceptional.
V sodbi z dne 28. junija 2007 v zadevi Da Silva proti Komisiji (F-21/06) je Sodišče za uslužbence razglasilo ničnost odločbe o razporeditvi tožeče stranke v naziv, ki je bila v skladu s členom 29(2) Kadrovskih predpisov imenovana za direktorja in razporejena v isti naziv, ki ga je imela prej, vendar v nižji plačilni razred.
Article 7(5) of the Annex to the Statute of the Court of Justice provides that, subject to the specic provisions of the Rules of Procedure, the unsuccessful party is to be ordered to pay
V sodbi z dne 5. julija 2007 v zadevi Dethomas proti Komisiji (F-93/06) je Sodišče za uslužbence, potem ko je ugotovilo, da Uredba Sveta (ES, Euratom) št. 723/2004 z dne 22. marca 2004 (UL L 124, str.
In that connection, Article 87(2) of the Rules of Procedure provides that, if equity so requires, the Tribunal may decide that an unsuccessful party is to pay only part of the costs or even that he is not to be ordered to pay any.
Opozoriti je treba tudi na sodbo z dne 8. novembra 2007 v zadevi Deaa proti Komisiji (F-125/06), ki ponazarja tehnične težave pri razlagi novih določb Kadrovskih predpisov glede odnosa med členom 44, drugi odstavek, Kadrovskih predpisov in členom 7(4) priloge XIII h Kadrovskim predpisom v zvezi z„nagrado za vodenje“, katere dodelitev je povezana s pridobitvijo funkcij vodje enote, direktorja ali generalnega direktorja.
Article 94(a) of the Rules of Procedure of the Tribunal provides that where a party has caused the Tribunal to incur avoidable costs, in particular where the action is an abuse of process, that party may be ordered to pay them but the amount of that refund may not exceed EUR 2 000.
Sodišče za uslužbence je presojalo v številnih zadevah, povezanih z natečajem, med katerimi je treba opozoriti na zadevo De Meerleer proti Komisiji (sodba z dne 14. junija 2007, F-121/05).
This allows the Tribunal, in exceptional cases, to make an applicant who unreasonably burdens the court, for example by repeated actions on insubstantial grounds, pay part of the costs which it causes the court to incur.
Sodišče za uslužbence je v zgoraj navedeni sodbi opredelilo, da pooblastilo natečajne komisije za ponovno preučitev svoje odločitve ni primerljivo z nadzorom, ki ga v okviru pritožbe izvaja ta organ, pristojen za imenovanja (v nadaljevanju: OPI), in sodnik Skupnosti v primeru pravnega sredstva, in da ima zato tožeča stranka ločen in dejanski interes, da njeno zahtevo za ponovno preučitev preuči natečajna komisija, čeprav bi lahko vložila pritožbo in pravno sredstvo zoper to prvotno odločbo natečajne komisije.
This option is consistent with the Council’s intention, given specic form by the application of the ‘loser pays’ rule to all unsuccessful parties before the Tribunal, to limit the number of unjustied actions in the interests of the sound administration of justice.
Sodišče za uslužbence je v isti sodbi preučilo, ali so se kandidati dejansko lahko seznanili z prvotno odločbo natečajne komisije prek sistema za iskanje podatkov iz svojega elektronskega dosjeja EPSO, da bi lahko v predpisanem roku vložili zahtevo za ponovno preučitev odločitve natečajne komisije.
Other noteworthy innovations
Zdravniški pregled
The concern for continuity in the operation of the court, the conduct of the procedure and the preparation of cases did not stand in the way of a certain number of innovations, in particular as regards:
V sodbi z dne 13. decembra 2007 v zadevi N proti Komisiji (F-95/05) je Sodišče za uslužbence menilo, da je treba tudi glede kandidatov, ki se zaposlijo v tretji državi, spoštovati postopek zdravniškega pregleda, kot je določen v členu 33 Kadrovskih predpisov.
• c la ri ic at i on of the arrangements for measures of ce du re organisation and of the pro measures of inquiry respectively — the former are addressed to the parties, or more specically to their representatives, and the latter relate either to third parties or to the parties themselves;
Sodišče za uslužbence se je za razlago člena 42a Kadrovskih predpisov v sodbi z dne 13. decembra 2007 v zadevi Duyster proti Komisiji (F-51/05 in F-18/06) pri opredelitvi starševskega dopusta sklicevalo na Direktivo Sveta 96/34/ES z dne 3. junija 1996 o okvirnem sporazumu o starševskem dopustu, sklenjenem med UNICE, CEEP in ETUC (UL L 145, str. 4).
•referralofacasefromachamberofthreejudgestothefullcourtorachamberofivejudges — this no longer requires that the parties be consulted as the right of the parties to a fair hearing is already ensured by the transfer of the case to a court made up of a higher number of judges;
Sodišče za uslužbence se je ob sklicevanju na sodno prakso Sodišča opredelilo, da če OPI odloča o zahtevi za razglasitev ničnosti ali za prekinitev starševskega dopusta, je njegova možnost proste presoje omejena, če zadevna oseba, ki koristi starševski dopust, v svoji zahtevi za prekinitev dopusta dokaže, da jo dogodki po dodelitvi navedenega dopusta neizpodbojno postavljajo v položaj, da se ne more ukvarjati z otrokom v prvotno navedenih okoliščinah.
• intervention — the Rules of Procedure introduce the possibility of the President of the formation of the court inviting a third party with an interest in the resolution of the dispute to intervene;
Do takega položaja pride zlasti, če uradnik zboli za boleznijo, ki je tako huda oziroma ima take značilnosti, da zanj nastane tak položaj nezmožnosti.
• orders, the arrangements for which are clariied under or the same head in g judgments.
Ker te okoliščine v obravnavani zadevi niso bile dokazane, je bila tožba zavrnjena.
Civil Service Tribunal
Sodišče za uslužbence c)
Procedural aspects
Ocenjevanje in napredovanje
The Tribunal had occasion to interpret Article 111 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, applicable to the Tribunal mutatis mutandis, according to which, where it is clear that that Court has no jurisdiction to take cognisance of an action or where the action is manifestly inadmissible or manifestly lacking any foundation in law, it may, by reasoned order, and without taking further steps in the proceedings, give a decision on the action.
Sodišče za uslužbence je v sodbi z dne 22. novembra 2007 v zadevi Michail proti Komisiji (F-67/05) – potem ko je poudarilo, da tožeči stranki, čeprav aktivno zaposleni v smislu člena 36 Kadrovskih predpisov, v referenčnem obdobju ni bila dodeljena nobena funkcija, ki bi lahko bila ocenjena – na podlagi tega ugotovilo, da ji Komisija ne bi smela podati ocene sposobnosti, in je zato razveljavilo karierno ocenjevalno poročilo zadevne osebe.
The Tribunal held, inter alia, that this provision should apply not only to those cases where the breach of the rules on admissibility is so obvious and blatant that no serious argument can be put forward in favour of admissibility, but also to those cases where, on reading the court le, the formation of the court is entirely convinced of the inadmissibility of the application, in particular because it breaches the requirements established by settled case-law, and takes the view that the holding of a hearing would not be liable to furnish any new evidence whatsoever in that regard (orders of 27 March 2007 in Case F-87/06 Manté v Council; of 20 April 2007 in Case F-13/07 L v EMEA; and of 20 June 2007 in Case F-51/06 Tesoka v FEACVT).
Sodišče za uslužbence je v sodbi z dne 13. decembra 2007 v zadevi Sundholm proti Komisiji (F-42/06) razveljavilo karierno ocenjevalno poročilo uradnika z obrazložitvijo, da Komisija za obdobje, ki ga zadeva navedeno poročilo, zadevne osebe ni seznanila s cilji in merili ocenjevanja ter pri ocenjevanju njenih sposobnosti ni upoštevala take okoliščine.
In addition, the Tribunal made clear that the final situation covered by that provision includes all actions manifestly bound to fail for reasons connected with the substance of the case (order of 26 September 2007 in Case F-129/06 Salvador Roldán v Commission).
Sodišče za uslužbence je v sodbah z dne 22. novembra 2007 v zadevi Dittert proti Komisiji (F-109/06) in v zadevi Carpi Badia proti Komisiji (F-110/06) razglasilo ničnost zavrnitve napredovanja tožečih strank zaradi bistvene kršitve postopka napredovanja.
In the above cases, the Tribunal pointed out that the dismissal of the action by reasoned order not only contributes to the economy of the procedure but also spares the parties the costs involved in holding a hearing.
Imen tožečih strank namreč zaradi računalniške težave ni bilo na seznamu, ki ga je generalni direktor uporabil pri dodelitvi prednostnih točk generalnega direktorata, tako da jima ni bila dodeljena nobena točka.
Request
Delovne razmere
In its judgment of 17 April in Joined Cases F-44/06 and F-94/06 C and F v Commission, the Tribunal established the procedural implications of Article 233 EC and the caselaw according to which, where a judgment annuls a measure, the administration is under a duty to act and take the measures to implement a final judgment without any requirement being imposed on the official to that end.
Sodišče za uslužbence je v sodbi z dne 16. januarja 2007 v zadevi Gesner proti UUNT (F-119/05) glede zahteve začasnega uslužbenca, da se imenuje invalidsko komisijo, zato da bi izkoristil zavarovanje zaradi invalidnosti, razglasilo ničnost odločbe o zavrnitvi organa, pooblaščenega za sklepanje pogodb (v nadaljevanju: OPSP), z obrazložitvijo, da se je ta napačno oprl na člen 59(4) Kadrovskih predpisov, s tem ko je štel, da tožeča stranka ni imela skupno vsaj dvanajstih mesecev bolniškega dopusta v treh letih.
The Tribunal held that where compensation is sought for an unreasonable delay in implementation of or the absence of any measures to implement a judgment, the lawfulness of the pre-litigation procedure cannot be made subject to the submission of a request by the official under Article 90(1) of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communities (‘Staff Regulations’).
Sodišče za uslužbence je v sodbi z dne 22. maja 2007 v zadevi López Teruel proti UUNT (F-99/06) opredelilo potek novega arbitražnega postopka, določenega v členu 59(1), od petega do osmega pododstavka, Kadrovskih predpisov, s katerim lahko uradnik na bolniškem dopustu izpodbija izvide zdravniškega pregleda, ki ga je izvedla institucija, če se pri navedenem pregledu ugotovi, da je njegova odsotnost neupravičena.
Act adversely aecting an ocial
Plača in povračilo stroškov
In its order of 24 May 2007 in Joined Cases F-27/06 and F-75/06 Lofaro v Commission the Tribunal made clear that an end of probation report which the administration used as a basis for dismissing a member of staff constitutes only a preparatory measure for the decision to dismiss and, therefore, does not adversely aect the person concerned within the meaning of Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations.
Sodišče za uslužbence je v sodbi z dne 16. januarja 2007 v zadevi Borbély proti Komisiji (F-126/05) zavrnilo trditev Komisije, da od spremembe člena 5(1) priloge VII h Kadrovskim predpisom, izvedene z reformo leta 2004, prebivališče v smislu te določbe ne more biti več enako središču interesov uradnika, kot je izhajalo iz ustaljene sodne prakse. Izraz „prebivališče“ je treba odslej vedno razlagati tako, da opredeljuje središče interesov uradnika ali uslužbenca.
The caselaw to the eect that the adoption of a new rule constitutes a new substantial fact, which also aects ocials not falling within its eld of application if that rule entails unjustied inequalities of treatment between the latter and the persons beneting from the new rule, was applied in Case F-92/05 Genette v Commission (judgment of 16 January 2007) as regards the combined eects of the new Staff Regulations and the 2003 Belgian law amending the conditions for the transfer of pension rights acquired in Belgium to the Community scheme.
Sodišče za uslužbence je v zadevi Roodhuijzen proti Komisiji (sodba z dne 27. novembra 2007, F-122/06) odločilo, da ima na podlagi sporazuma o skupnem življenju, sklenjenega na Nizozemskem pred notarjem med uradnikom in uradnikovo zunajzakonsko partnerko, slednja v skladu s členom 72 Kadrovskih predpisov in člena 12 Pravilnika o zdravstvenem zavarovanju uradnikov Evropskih skupnosti pravico do ugodnosti iz skupnega sistema zdravstvenega zavarovanja Evropskih skupnosti.
In this report it is impossible to give an exhaustive account of the caselaw of the Tribunal for 2007.
Na občni seji Sodišča za uslužbence v zadevi Wils proti Parlamentu (sodba z dne 11. julija 2007, F-105/05) je bila zavrnjena tožba, ki je z ugovorom izpodbijala nova podrobna pravila izračuna stopnje prispevka uradnikov v pokojninski sistem, ki so bila določena s prilogo XII h Kadrovskim predpisom.
Mention will therefore be made only of the year’s most signicant new developments, as regards, first, the general principles of Community civil service law and, second, the interpretation of the main new provisions of the Staff Regulations, which will be considered in the order of the headings of those regulations.
V teh okoliščinah, čeprav je iz spisa izhajalo, da je bilo referenčno obdobje za izračun aktuarske stopnje predmet političnih pogajanj in je bilo na dvanajst let določeno zato, da se upoštevajo proračunske težave, tožeča stranka ni
General principles of Community civil service law
Sodišče za uslužbence mogla zatrjevati, da je izbira takega obdobja pomenila zlorabo pooblastil.
In Case F-23/05 Giraudy v Commission (judgment of 2 May 2007), the Tribunal had to deal with questions relating to the reconciliation of the serenity and proper conduct of an investigation of the European Anti-Fraud Oce (‘OLAF’), the right of the public to be informed and the protection of the presumption of innocence, of the integrity and of the professional reputation of an ocial reassigned in the interest of the service.
Sodišče za uslužbence se je v zgoraj navedeni zadevi Genette proti Komisiji, ki jo je Komisija navajala kot „poskusno“ zadevo, izreklo glede vprašanja o uradnikih, ki jih je bilo v tem primeru veliko, ki so v sistem Skupnosti prenesli pokojninske pravice, predhodno pridobljene pri belgijskih pokojninskih organih. Tožeča stranka je zahtevala, da se njene, že prenesene pravice, ponovno izračunajo, da bi se upoštevala ugodnejša podrobna pravila o prenosu, ki so bila uveljavljena z belgijskim zakonom iz leta 2003.
In this case, the Tribunal ordered the Commission to pay compensation for the non-material harm suered by the applicant, consisting in damage to his honour and professional reputation, because of breaches of the duty to have regard for his welfare in circumstances where he was reassigned following the opening of an investigation by OLAF.
Komisija je zavrnila umik svojih odločitev glede pokojninskih pravic tožeče stranke, ki so bile prenesene v sistem Skupnosti, z obrazložitvijo, da bi bil tak umik nezakonit, ker ni določb prava Skupnosti, ki bi to izrecno dovoljevale. Sodišče za uslužbence je presodilo, da je bilo v tej obrazložitvi napačno uporabljeno pravo.
The Tribunal found that the Commission did not strike a proper balance between the interests of the applicant and those of the institution in giving extensive publicity, on the opening of OLAF’s investigation, to the reassignment of the applicant, thus suggesting that he was personally implicated in the possible irregularities in question, without any publicity being given, by the Commission itself, to the final report by OLAF, which exonerated the applicant as regards the allegations which led to the opening of the investigation.
Ugotovilo je namreč, da splošni pogoji, ki so se oblikovali s sodno prakso Sodišča glede umika posamezne odločitve, ki ustvarja pravico, niso bili ovira za umik take odločitve, čeprav zakonite, če je umik zahtevala oseba, ki ima pravice iz te odločitve, in če ta umik ne ogroža pravic tretjih.
The position taken by the Commission’s spokesman, expressing his sympathy and that of the institution for the applicant, was not comparable, either in the manner or impact of its presentation, to the publicity which had been given to the applicant’s reassignment on the opening of the investigation.
V zadevah Tsirimokos proti Parlamentu in Colovea proti Parlamentu (sodbi z dne 13. novembra 2007, F-76/06 in F-77/06) je Sodišče za uslužbence pojasnilo, da tako iz dobesedne kot iz sistematične razlage člena 4(b) priloge IVa h Kadrovskim predpisom izhaja, da se ta člen ne nanaša na anuitete, pridobljene po prenosu pokojninskih pravic v pokojninski sistem Skupnosti.
The Tribunal held that, by not reducing to the strict minimum the damage done to the applicant by the opening of the investigation, the Commission infringed its duty to have regard for the welfare of its ocials and servants and committed a wrongful act in the performance of its duties which was such as to give rise to its liability.
Zato je Sodišče za uslužbence zavrnilo zahteve tožečih strank za razglasitev ničnosti odločb o tem, da se ne upoštevajo anuitete, pridobljene po prenosu pokojninskih pravic, pridobljenih v nacionalnih sistemih, pri izračunu plače, izplačane za delo s polovičnim delovnim časom v okviru priprave na upokojitev.
Protection of legitimate expectations
Disciplinska ureditev
By its judgment of 1 March 2007 in Case F-84/05 Neirinck v Commission the Tribunal held that the fact that a head of a department had meetings with a candidate for a post as a member of the temporary stato discuss the possibility of employing that person in his team and had expressed a wish to employ that person does not demonstrate the existence of a promise to recruit.
Sodišče za uslužbence je v sodbi z dne 8. novembra 2007 v zadevi Andreasen proti Komisiji (F-40/05) uporabilo nove kadrovske predpise zlasti glede ugotavljanja teže ravnanj, ki so bila razlog za odstavitev uradnika.
Accordingly, the Tribunal held that the candidate for the post could not claim that the administration had created a legitimate expectation in his mind that he would be recruited.
Člen 10 priloge IX h Kadrovskim predpisom določa, da mora biti naložena disciplinska sankcija sorazmerna s težo storjene kršitve, in določa merila, ki jih mora OPI upoštevati zlasti pri izbiri sankcij.
Careers of ocials
Ureditev, ki se uporabi za druge uslužbence Evropskih skupnosti
Recruitment
Stroški
In its judgment of 28 June 2007 in Case F-21/06 Da Silva v Commission the Tribunal annulled a decision grading the applicant, who had been appointed Director following a recruitment procedure under Article 29(2) of the Staff Regulations and classied in the same grade as he had held previously, but in a lower step.
Sodišče za uslužbence je večkrat uporabilo člen 87(3) Poslovnika Sodišča prve stopnje, ki se lahko mutatis mutandis uporabi za odločitev, bodisi na podlagi prvega pododstavka te določbe, da se stroški v izjemnih okoliščinah razdelijo med strankama (sodba z dne 7. novembra 2007 v zadevi Hinderyckx proti Svetu, F-57/06, in sklep z dne 14. decembra 2007 v zadevi Steinmetz proti Komisiji, F-131/06), bodisi na podlagi njegovega drugega pododstavka, da se stranki, ki je uspela, naloži plačilo dela stroškov, ki jih je priglasila druga stranka, za katere se oceni, da jih je ta stranka povzročila brez razloga in iz nagajanja (sodba z dne 9. oktobra 2007 v zadevi Bellantone proti Računskemu sodišču, F-85/06, in zgoraj navedena sodba Duyster proti Komisiji), in sicer tudi v primeru tožbe, za katero sodišče meni, da je očitno nedopustna (sklep z dne 27. marca 2007 v zadevi Manté proti Svetu, F-87/06).
Also of interest is the judgment of 8 November 2007 in Case F-125/06 Deaa v Commission, which illustrates the technical diculties of interpreting the new provisions of the Staff Regulations as regards the relationship between the second paragraph of Article 44 of the Staff Regulations and Article 7(4) of Annex XIII to those regulations, concerning a ‘management premium’ which is granted where the duties of head of unit, director or directorgeneral are performed.
Leta 2007 so bili vloženi štirje predlogi za izdajo začasnih odredb, ki so bili zavrnjeni, ker ni bila podana nujnost pri predlaganih ukrepih, ki jih ustaljena sodna praksa opredeljuje v smislu, da morajo biti sprejeti in morajo učinkovati pred izrekom sodbe v glavni stvari, da tožeči stranki ne nastane velika in nenadomestljiva škoda (sklepi predsednika Sodišča za uslužbence z dne 1. februarja 2007 v zadevi Bligny proti Komisiji, F-142/06 R; z dne 13. marca 2007 v zadevi Chassagne proti Komisiji, F-1/07 R; z dne 10. septembra 2007 v zadevi Zangerl-Posselt proti Komisiji, F-83/07 R, in z dne 21. novembra 2007 v zadevi Petrilli proti Komisiji, F-98/07 R).
The Tribunal made clear in that judgment that the power of a competition selection board to re-examine its decisions is not comparable to the power of review of the appointing authority in the context of a complaint or of the Community courts in court proceedings, and that, therefore, an applicant has a separate and real interest in having his request for re-examination considered by the selection board, even if he has been able to lodge a complaint and bring an action before the court against that initial decision of the selection board.
V zgoraj navedenih zadevah Bligny proti Komisiji in Zangerl-Posselt proti Komisiji je sodnik za izdajo začasne odredbe opozoril na ustaljeno sodno prakso Sodišča in Sodišča prve stopnje, v skladu s katero nadaljevanje preizkusov splošnega natečaja ne more povzročiti nenadomestljive škode kandidatu, ki je bil v manj ugodnem položaju zaradi nepravilnosti pri navedenem natečaju.
Also in that judgment, the Tribunal considered whether the candidates were able to have eective knowledge of the initial decision of the selection board through the system for consultation of their electronic EPSO le, so as to be able to submit a request for re-examination of the decision of the selection board within the period prescribed.
Namreč, če je v okviru natečaja, organiziranega za sestavo čakalnega seznama za zaposlitev, razveljavljen en preizkus, so pravice kandidata popolnoma ustrezno varovane, če natečajna komisija in OPI ponovno obravnavata svoje odločitve in poiščeta ustrezno rešitev za njegov primer.
Medical examination
Predlogi za pravno pomoč