JUDGMENT OF THE EUROPEAN UNION CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL

(Second Chamber)

21 November 2013

Joined Cases F‑72/12 and F‑10/13

Josiane Roulet

v

European Commission

(Civil service — Remuneration — Article 66 of the Staff Regulations — Former member of the temporary staff at Grade AD 12 — Recruitment as an official at Grade AD 6 — Payment of remuneration equivalent to that paid to an official at Grade AD 12 — Manifest error — Recovery of undue payments under Article 85 of the Staff Regulations)

Application:      under Article 270 TFEU, applicable to the EAEC Treaty pursuant to Article 106a thereof, in which, by an application received by the Tribunal Registry on 9 July 2012, registered as Case F‑72/12, Ms Roulet requests the Tribunal to annul the decision of the European Commission, as evidenced by the note of 20 December 2011, to recover the sum of EUR 172 236.42 under Article 85 of the Staff Regulations, and, in the alternative, to grant her compensation for the harm suffered, and, by an application received by the Tribunal Registry on 3 February 2013, registered as Case F‑10/13, Ms Roulet requests the Tribunal to annul the Commission’s decision of 28 March 2012 in so far as it rejects her claim for compensation of 13 January 2012 and to order the Commission to pay her compensation of EUR 172 236.42 or, in the alternative, a lesser sum for the harm suffered.

Held:      The actions in Joined Cases F‑72/12 and F‑10/13 are dismissed. Ms Roulet is to bear her own costs and is ordered to pay those incurred by the European Commission.

Summary

1.      Officials — Recovery of undue payments — Conditions — Patent overpayment — Criteria

(Staff Regulations, Art. 85)

2.      Actions brought by officials — Conditions for admissibility — Objection of lis pendens — Actions for damages — Identical claim for compensation in a previous action found inadmissible — No lis pendens

1.      As regards the recovery of undue payments, the phrase ‘patently such’ relating to overpayment within the meaning of the first paragraph of Article 85 of the Staff Regulations does not mean that an official who receives undue payments need make no effort to reflect or check but rather that recovery is due where the error is one which does not escape the notice of an official exercising ordinary care, who is deemed to know the rules governing his salary. Furthermore, account must be taken in each case of the ability of the official concerned to make the necessary checks. The factors taken into consideration by the Union judicature in this regard concern in particular the official’s level of responsibility, and his grade and seniority.

Furthermore, it is not necessary for the official or member of the temporary staff concerned, in the exercise of his duty of diligence, to be able to determine the precise extent of the error made by the administration. The fact that he has doubts about the validity of the payments in question is sufficient for him to be obliged to contact the administration so that it can carry out the necessary checks.

(see paras 48-50)

See:

5 November 2002, T‑205/01 Ronsse v Commission, paras 46 and 47; 29 September 2005, T‑195/03 Thommes v Commission, para. 124

2.      Where an action has parties, subject-matter and pleas in law which are identical to those of an action which was lodged previously, it must be dismissed as inadmissible.

If claims for compensation made in an action brought previously were held to be inadmissible on the ground that they had been submitted prematurely, the Civil Service Tribunal cannot be regarded as having exhausted its competence regarding identical claims for compensation made in an action brought subsequently.

(see paras 86-87)

See:

19 September 2006, F‑22/06 Vienne and Others v Parliament, para. 12 and the case-law cited therein