ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE SECOND CHAMBER OF THE EUROPEAN UNION CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL
12 January 2012 (*)
(Removal from the register)
In Case F‑68/11,
ACTION brought under Article 270 TFEU, applicable to the EAEC Treaty pursuant to Article 106a thereof,
Sabine Schreiber, a member of the contract staff of the European Commission, residing in Berlin (Germany), represented by S. Rodrigues, A. Blot and C. Bernard-Glanz, lawyers,
applicant,
v
European Commission, represented by G. Berscheid and D. Martin, acting as Agents,
defendant,
THE PRESIDENT OF THE SECOND CHAMBER OF THE CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL
makes the following
Order
1 By application lodged at the Registry of the Tribunal on 15 July 2011 Ms Schreiber seeks, in essence, annulment of the decision of the authority authorised to conclude contracts of employment of 30 September 2010 terminating her contract of employment of indefinite duration at the Commission Representation in Berlin (‘the contested decision’).
2 By letter received at the Registry of the Tribunal on 24 October 2011, the applicant informed the Tribunal that she wished to discontinue the proceedings and requested it to remove the present case from the register.
3 In that letter the applicant explained that, by letter of 11 July 2011, the Commission had informed her that it had decided to retain her in her post at the Commission Representation in Berlin and that the letter of 31 January 2011 regarding the termination of her contract had been withdrawn.
4 She also informed the Tribunal that, by email of 18 July 2011, she had requested the Commission to amend the letter of 11 July 2011 so as to make reference to the contested decision.
5 Lastly, the applicant stated that the Commission had not informed her until 6 October 2011 that the decision of 30 September 2010 had been annulled.
6 Having received that information, she accepted the Commission’s offer of 11 July 2011, with the result that the present action became devoid of purpose.
7 By letter received at the Registry of the Tribunal on 7 November 2011, the defendant informed the Tribunal that it had no comments to make on the discontinuance and requested the Tribunal to order that each party should bear its own costs.
8 By letter of 23 November 2011, the applicant requested the Tribunal to order the Commission to bear at least part of the costs because of the Commission’s conduct.
Discontinuance
9 Pursuant to Article 74 of the Rules of Procedure, if the applicant informs the Tribunal, in writing or at the hearing, that he wishes to discontinue the proceedings, the President is to order the case to be removed from the register and give a decision as to costs in accordance with Article 89(5).
10 Since the applicant informed the Tribunal in writing that she intended to discontinue the proceedings unconditionally, there is nothing to prevent the Tribunal from taking formal note of such discontinuance in accordance with Article 74 of the Rules of Procedure.
11 The present case must therefore be removed from the register of the Tribunal.
Costs
12 Under Article 89(5) of the Rules of Procedure, ‘[a] party who discontinues or withdraws from proceedings shall be ordered to pay the costs if they have been applied for in the observations of the other party on the discontinuance. However, upon application by the party who discontinues or withdraws from proceedings, the costs shall be borne by the other party if this appears justified by the conduct of that party’.
13 The applicant claims that the Tribunal should order the Commission to bear at least part of the costs in accordance with the second sentence of Article 89(5) of the Rules of Procedure.
14 She submits that she responded to the call for expressions of interest in respect of a post at the Representation in Berlin on 31 March 2011 and that the Commission offered her that post on 11 July 2011. By letter of 18 July 2011, however, she asked the Commission for additional information concerning that offer, which she accepted in October 2011 after receiving the information she had requested.
15 In that regard, it should be observed that in the application instituting proceedings the applicant made no reference either to the fact that she had expressed an interest and was awaiting clarification from the Commission or to the fact that by letter of 11 July 2011 the Commission had decided to retain her in her post in Berlin.
16 Nor, moreover, is it apparent from the documents before the Tribunal that the applicant or her legal advisers provided such information to the agents representing the Commission in the present proceedings, who were clearly unaware of the fact that the applicant had indeed expressed an interest in the post at the Representation in Berlin. It should be noted that in paragraph 19 of the defence the Commission stated that ‘… DG COMM organised a call for expression of interest for the eight vacant contract agent posts in the Representations, to the attention of the six contract agents recruited under the Action Plan, whose contracts have been terminated. The Applicant could thus have applied for several positions in Representations under extremely favourable circumstances …’.
17 Lastly, the applicant did not claim that the Tribunal should suspend the present proceedings pending receipt of the information she was awaiting.
18 It does not appear therefore that the circumstances of this case justify the Commission’s bearing part of the applicant’s costs.
19 Since the Commission has not applied for the applicant to be ordered to pay the costs, each of the parties must be ordered to bear its own costs.
On those grounds,
THE PRESIDENT OF THE SECOND CHAMBER OF THE CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL
hereby orders:
1. Case F‑68/11 Schreiber v Commission shall be removed from the register of the Tribunal;
2. Each party shall bear its own costs.
Luxembourg, 12 January 2012.
W. Hakenberg | | M.I. Rofes i Pujol |