ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE THIRD CHAMBER OF THE EUROPEAN UNION CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL
16 September 2015(*)
(Group action — Article 44(2) of the Rules of Procedure — Separation)
In Case F‑41/15,
ACTION brought under Article 270 TFEU,
FK, former member of the temporary staff of the European Police College, residing in Farnham (United Kingdom), and the other applicants whose names are set out in the annex, represented by L. Levi and A. Blot, lawyers,
applicants,
v
European Police College (CEPOL), represented by F. Bánfi and R. Woldhuis, acting as Agents, and B. Wägenbaur, lawyer,
defendant,
THE PRESIDENT OF THE THIRD CHAMBER OF THE CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL
makes the following
Order
1 By application lodged at the Tribunal Registry on 9 March 2015, FK, FL, FM, FN, FO, FP and FQ brought the present action seeking:
– the annulment of the decision of the European Police College (CEPOL) dated 23 May 2014 providing for the relocation of that agency to Budapest (Hungary) and informing its staff that any refusal to continue their employment at the new seat ‘will be considered as resignation [taking] effect [on] 30 September 2014’;
– the annulment of CEPOL’s various decisions dated 28 November 2014, rejecting the complaints lodged by the applicants individually between 8 and 21 August 2014;
– the annulment of two decisions dated 22 December 2014 by which CEPOL claimed to have accepted the resignation of FM and FO respectively;
– compensation in respect of the material and non-material harm incurred.
2 Having regard to the differing situations of, first, FK, whose employment contract has expired; secondly, FN, FP and FQ, who have moved to Budapest and continued their employment at CEPOL’s new seat; and, thirdly, FL, FM and FO, who refused to move and continue their employment at the new seat, the Tribunal Registry, by letter of 14 July 2015, informed the parties that the Tribunal might decide to separate the applicants’ cases in the interests of the proper administration of justice. With this in mind, the parties were requested, as a provisional measure and pursuant to Article 44(1) and (2) of the Rules of Procedure, to submit their observations in that regard.
3 By letter of 2 September 2015, the applicants stated that they were of the view that their group action was confined to challenging a single decision, namely the relocation of CEPOL’s seat to Budapest. They argued that the legal issues raised were the same for all of the applicants, while conceding that some of their situations differed in specific respects. They therefore stated that they did not wish their group action to be separated.
4 By letter of 2 September 2015, CEPOL stated that it had no objections. In its view, the envisaged separation is particularly in the interests of justice because two of the applicants, FM and FO, have asked for the complaints they brought against CEPOL’s decisions dated 22 December 2014 and concerning them specifically to be added to the file of the present case and have subsequently brought a new action registered as Case F‑105/15.
5 The Tribunal notes in this connection that, under Article 44 of the Rules of Procedure, the President of the formation of the court may disjoin previously joined cases or separate the case of one or more applicants who, together with others, have brought a group action. A decision on the disjoinder or separation of cases can be taken at any time by the President of the formation of the court, after hearing the parties. In the event of an objection, that decision is to take the form of a reasoned order.
6 In the present case, as the file now stands, the application shows different factual situations according to whether the applicants are still employed by CEPOL and whether or not they have agreed to continue their employment at CEPOL’s new seat in Budapest. The legal issues to be addressed also differ according to whether the applicants are still in a contractual relationship with CEPOL and/or whether or not they have accepted the principle that they resigned. Added to this is the fact that FM and FO have jointly brought a new action, which bears out the specific nature of the situation common to both those applicants.
7 As regards the contention that the applicants are essentially seeking to challenge a single decision, namely that resulting from the information published by the Director of CEPOL on 23 May 2014, it must be stated that they brought complaints which each were the subject of an individual decision. In terms of their content, those individual decisions confirm that several types of factual and legal situation are at issue in the present case.
8 In those circumstances, the Tribunal takes the view that, in the interests of the proper administration of justice, the cases of, first, FL, FM and FO and, secondly, FN, FP and FQ respectively must be separated from the case of FK.
On those grounds,
THE PRESIDENT OF THE THIRD CHAMBER OF THE CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL
hereby orders:
1. The cases of, first, FL, FM and FO and, secondly, FN, FP and FQ shall be separated from the case of FK, which is the subject-matter of the action registered as Case F‑41/15.
2. Costs are reserved.
Luxembourg, 16 September 2015.
W. Hakenberg | | S. Van Raepenbusch |
ANNEX
FL, residing in Reading (United Kingdom),
FM, residing in Basingstoke (United Kingdom),
FN, residing in Budapest (Hungary),
FO, residing in Tadley (United Kingdom),
FP, residing in Bratislava (Slovakia),
FQ, residing in Les Fonts Benitachell (Spain).