JUDGMENT OF THE EUROPEAN UNION CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL

(First Chamber)

15 October 2014

Case F‑86/13

Robert van de Water

v

European Parliament

(Civil service — Rights and obligations of officials — Declaration of intention to engage in an occupational activity after leaving the service — Article 16 of the Staff Regulations — Compatibility with the legitimate interests of the institution — Prohibition)

Application:      under Article 270 TFEU, applicable to the EAEC Treaty pursuant to Article 106a thereof, in which Mr van de Water, a retired member of the temporary staff of the European Parliament, seeks, in essence, annulment of the Parliament’s decision of 3 January 2013 prohibiting him from taking up an appointment as adviser to the Ukrainian Prime Minister for two years after leaving the service.

Held:      The action is dismissed. Mr van de Water is to bear his own costs and is ordered to pay the costs incurred by the European Parliament.

Summary

1.      Officials — Rights and obligations — Declaration of intention to engage in an occupational activity after leaving the service — Date when lodged — Receipt by the administration — Presumption created by the registration postmark or stamp of acknowledgement of receipt

(Staff Regulations, Art. 16)

2.      Officials — Rights and obligations — Engagement in an occupational activity after leaving the service — Limits — Compatibility with the legitimate interests of the institution — Administration’s discretion

(Staff Regulations, Art.16)

1.      Although the date of registration or of acknowledgment of receipt of a document by the administration concerned, such as a declaration of intention to engage in an occupational activity after leaving the service, does not make it possible to give a definite date for the lodging of that document, those registration or acknowledgment formalities nevertheless constitute, as an example of sound administrative management, at least a means of raising a presumption, until the contrary is proved, that the document reached it on the date indicated.

Moreover, it is not for the recipient of an unregistered letter to establish the reasons for any delay in the delivery thereof.

(see paras 30, 31)

See:

judgment in Michel v Parliament, 195/80, EU:C:1981:284, para. 11

order in Schmit v Commission, F‑3/05, EU:F:2006:31, para. 29

2.      With regard to the exercise of an occupational activity, whether gainful or not, within two years of an official leaving the service, the power of the appointing authority to prevent him from performing that activity or to impose conditions on such activity is subject to two separate conditions. First, that the proposed activity is related to the activity of the official during his last three years of service and, secondly, that the proposed activity could lead to a conflict with the legitimate interests of the institution.

As regards the first condition, it is apparent from the wording of Article 16 of the Staff Regulations that it is sufficient for the proposed activity to be related in any way to the activity carried out during the three years prior to leaving the service.

As regards the second condition laid down by Article 16 of the Staff regulations, it is evident from the very wording of that provision that, if the proposed activity could lead to a conflict with the legitimate interests of the institution, that institution has wide discretion.

(see paras 46, 48, 51)