ORDER OF THE CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL

(First Chamber)

4 February 2011

Case F‑54/10

Luc Verheyden

v

European Commission

(Civil service — Officials — Decision by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) to forward information concerning natural persons to the Italian judicial authorities — Effects of a judgment concerning third parties — Principle of equal treatment)

Application: brought under Article 270 TFEU, applicable to the EAEC Treaty pursuant to Article 106a thereof, in which Mr Verheyden seeks, in particular, annulment of the Commission’s decision refusing to pay him the same compensation of EUR 3 000 as the Tribunal had ordered it to pay to each of the applicants in its judgment of 28 April 2009 in Joined Cases F‑5/05 and F‑7/05 Violetti and Others v Commission.

Held: The application is dismissed as manifestly unfounded. The applicant is to bear all the costs.

Summary

1.      Procedure — Merits considered before admissibility — Lawfulness

2.      Officials — Equal treatment — Different treatment of addressees of similar individual decisions, some having been successful in legal proceedings concerning those decisions and others not — No discrimination

3.      Officials — Administration’s duty to have regard for the interests of officials — Principle of sound administration — Scope — Judicial review — Limits

1.      The Union judicature may assess whether, in the interest of the proper administration of justice, an action must, in any event, be dismissed on the merits without there being any need to rule on its admissibility.

(see para. 31)

See:

26 February 2002, C‑23/00 P Council v Böhringer, paras 51 and 52

2.      The addressees of a number of similar individual decisions adopted in the context of joint proceedings may be treated differently where only some of them have obtained annulment of those decisions whereas others have not been successful in proceedings before the courts having jurisdiction.

The situation of an official whose action has been dismissed as inadmissible is objectively different from that of other officials who brought their applications within the time-limits for instituting proceedings, obtained recognition that a wrongful act had been committed against them and, consequently, obtained an order against the institution by the Civil Service Tribunal. It follows that the institution manifestly did not infringe the principle of equal treatment by refusing to pay the official concerned the same sum as the other officials.

(see paras 34, 35)

See:

14 September 1999, C‑310/97 P Commission v AssiDomän Kraft Products and Others, paras 49 to 71

3.      In accordance with the principle of sound administration and the duty to have regard for the welfare of officials, when the administration takes a decision concerning the situation of an official, it must take into consideration all the factors which may affect its decision, and when doing so it should take into account not only the interests of the service but also those of the official concerned. The institutions may also, in order to show particular concern for the welfare of their staff, extend the benefit of judicial decisions in favour of other officials to certain officials who have failed to challenge in good time individual decisions affecting them.

However, having regard to the institutions’ wide discretion to determine what are the interests of the service, the review by the Union judicature must be limited to the question whether the institution concerned remained within reasonable bounds and did not use its discretion in a manifestly incorrect way.

(see paras 36, 37)

See:

4 February 1987, 417/85 Maurissen v Court of Auditors, para. 12; 11 January 2001, C‑389/98 P Gevaert v Commission, paras 44, 45 and 56

15 September 1998, T‑3/96 Haas and Others v Commission, para. 53; 16 March 2004, T‑11/03 Afari v ECB, para. 42