JUDGMENT OF THE EUROPEAN UNION CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL

(First Chamber)

21 January 2014

Case F‑102/12

Marc Van Asbroeck

v

European Parliament

(Civil service — Classification in grade — Applicants placed on the reserve list of a competition to change category prior to the entry into force of the 2004 Staff Regulations — Compensatory allowance — Decision to re-grade officials benefiting from that compensatory allowance)

Application:      under Article 270 TFEU, applicable to the EAEC Treaty pursuant to Article 106a thereof, in which Mr Van Asbroeck seeks annulment of the decision of 15 November 2011 by which the European Parliament re-graded him, following his transfer from the European Commission, in grade AST 5, step 3, with his seniority in step being fixed at 1 September 2011, and, so far as is necessary, annulment of the decision of 15 June 2012 dismissing his complaint.

Held:      The action is dismissed. The European Parliament is to bear its own costs and is ordered to pay the costs incurred by Mr Van Asbroeck.

Summary

1.      Officials — Staff Regulations — Regulation No 723/2004 amending the Staff Regulations — Transitional arrangements — Administration’s discretion — Scope — Autonomy of the institutions

(Staff Regulations, Art. 110; Council Regulation No 723/2004, recital 37)

2.      Officials — Equal treatment — Limits — Advantage unlawfully granted

1.      In adopting Regulation No 723/2004 amending the Staff Regulations of Officials and the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants, the EU legislature did not put in place uniform transition arrangements for all the institutions and bodies and, consequently, each appointing authority had to adopt internal provisions specific to the institution or body concerned in order to protect the rights acquired by its officials and secure their legitimate expectations. The inevitable consequence of that choice by the legislature, so far as the reclassification of cross-category officials is concerned, is that although they are treated in a uniform manner within the same institution this is not necessarily so in the event of a transfer from one institution to another, in compliance, of course, with the relevant provisions of the Staff Regulations.

Although, under the principle of a single European administration, all the officials of all the institutions of the Union are subject to a single body of Staff Regulations, such a principle does not mean that the institutions are required to make identical use of the discretion afforded to them by the Staff Regulations when, on the contrary, in the management of their staff the institutions have the benefit of the principle of autonomy.

(see paras 28-29)

See:

16 September 1997, T‑220/95 Gimenez v Committee of the Regions, para.72

18 September 2013, F‑76/12 Scheidemann v Commission, para. 26

2.      The principle of equality of treatment between officials must be reconciled with the principle of legality, according to which no person may rely, in support of his claim, on an unlawful act committed in favour of another.

(see para. 38)

See:

4 July 1985, 134/84 Williams v Court of Auditors, para. 14; 2 June 1994, C‑326/91 P de Compte v Parliament, paras 51 and 52

1 July 2010, F‑40/09 Časta v Commission, para. 88