JUDGMENT OF THE CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL
(Second Chamber)

14 July 2011

Case F-98/07

Nicole Petrilli

v

European Commission

(Civil service – Auxiliary contract staff – Fixed-term contract – Rules on the maximum duration for employing non-permanent staff in the Commission services – Decision to refuse renewal of the contract – Unlawfulness – Extent of compensation for damage – Equitable assessment)

Application:      brought under Articles 236 EC and 152 EA, in which Ms Petrilli seeks annulment of the Commission’s decision of 20 July 2007 rejecting her request for an extension of her contract as an auxiliary member of the contract staff, together with an order for the Commission to pay damages.

Held:      The monetary compensation owed to the applicant by the Commission pursuant to the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 29 January 2009 in Case F‑98/07 Petrilli v Commission is fixed at the sum of EUR 12 097.43, plus interest at the base rate fixed by the European Central Bank for its main refinancing operations, applicable during the period concerned, increased by two points. The Commission is to bear all the costs relating to the phase of the proceedings prior to delivery of the judgment of 29 January 2009, cited above, as well as its own costs and half of the applicant’s costs relating to the subsequent phase of the proceedings. The applicant is to bear half of her own costs relating to the phase of the proceedings after delivery of the judgment of 29 January 2009, cited above.

Summary

Officials – Actions – Actions for damages – Annulment of the illegal act in dispute – Whether appropriate reparation for non-material damage

(Staff Regulations, Arts 90 and 91)

The annulment of an unlawful act may in itself constitute appropriate and, in principle, sufficient reparation for any non-material damage that act may have caused, unless the applicant demonstrates that he has suffered non-material damage separable from the illegality of the act justifying its annulment and not capable of being entirely remedied by that annulment.

(see para. 28)

See:

9 July 1987, 44/85, 77/85, 294/85 and 295/85 Hochbaum and Rawes v Commission, para. 22; 7 February 1990, C-343/87 Culin v Commission, paras 27 and 28

9 November 2004, T-116/03 Montalto v Council, para. 127; 6 June 2006, T‑10/02 Girardot v Commission, para. 131

9 December 2010, T-526/08 P Commission v Strack, para. 58

8 May 2008, F-6/07 Suvikas v Council, para. 151