JUDGMENT OF THE EUROPEAN UNION CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL (Second Chamber)

17 February 2016

Case F‑58/14

DE

v

European Medicines Agency (EMA)

(Civil service — Temporary staff member — Non-renewal of a fixed-term contract — First paragraph of Article 8 of the CEOS — Material change in the nature of the duties performed by the staff member — Interruption of the career path — Reclassification of a fixed-term contract as a contract of indefinite duration — Excluded)

Application:      under Article 270 TFEU, by which DE seeks, essentially, annulment of the decision of 12 September 2013 of the Executive Director of the European Medicines Agency (EMA), in the Executive Director’s capacity as the EMA’s authority empowered to conclude contracts of employment, not to renew his temporary staff contract, and compensation for the material and non-material harm he claims to have suffered.

Held:      The action is dismissed. DE shall bear his own costs and is ordered to pay the costs incurred by the European Medicines Agency.

Summary

1.      Officials — Members of the temporary staff — Temporary staff covered by Article 2(a) of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants — Renewal after the first extension of a fixed-term contract — Reclassification as a contract for an indefinite period — Concept of renewal — Continuation of the employment relationship whether or not accompanied by a career progression

(Conditions of Employment of Other Servants, Art. 2(a), Art. 8, first para.)

2.      Officials — Members of the temporary staff — Recruitment — Renewal of a fixed-term contract — Administration’s discretion — Judicial review — Limits — Manifest error of assessment — Concept

(Conditions of Employment of Other Servants, Art. 2(a), and Art. 8, first para.)

1.      The words ‘any further renewal’ in the third sentence of the first paragraph of Article 8 of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants must be interpreted as referring to any process that leads to a temporary staff member under Article 2(a) of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants, at the end of his engagement for a fixed period, continuing, in that capacity, his employment relationship with his employer, even if such renewal is accompanied by grade progression or a change in the duties performed. The situation could be otherwise only if the new contract were to mark an interruption of the career path, as shown, for instance, by a material change in the nature of the duties performed by the staff member concerned.

(see para. 43)

See:

Judgment of 16 September 2015 in EMA v Drakeford, T-231/14 P, EU:T:2015:639, paras 40 and 41.

2.      Although Article 8 of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants provides for the possibility of renewing a temporary staff member’s contract, this is not a right of the person concerned, but merely a possibility which is left to the discretion of the competent authority. The institutions of the European Union enjoy a broad discretion in the organisation of their departments on the basis of the tasks entrusted to them and in assigning the staff available to them having regard to such tasks, on condition, however, that staff are assigned in the interests of the service.

In view of the broad discretion which the institutions have with regard to the renewal of a contract, the Tribunal must, when it has before it an action for annulment directed against an act adopted in the exercise of that discretion, restrict itself to ascertaining whether, regard being had to the factors and reasons which led the administration to its assessment, the administration remained within unimpeachable limits and did not manifestly misuse its power.

An error may be classified as manifest only where it is easily recognisable and can be readily detected, in the light of the criteria to which the legislature intended the administration’s exercise of its discretion to be subject. Consequently, in order to establish that the administration committed a manifest error in assessing the facts such as to justify the annulment of a decision taken as a result, the evidence, which it is for the applicant to adduce, must be sufficient to make the findings of the administration implausible. In other words, the plea alleging a manifest error must be rejected if, despite the evidence adduced by the applicant, the disputed assessment may still be accepted as justified and consistent.

(see paras 62-64)

See:

Judgment of 10 October 2014 in EMA v BU, T‑444/13 P, EU:T:2014:865, para. 28

Judgments of 27 November 2008 in Klug v EMEA, F‑35/07, EU:F:2008:150, paras 65 and 66; 10 September 2014 in Tzikas v ERA, F‑120/13, EU:F:2014:197, para. 91, and 8 October 2015 in FT v ESMA, F‑39/14, EU:F:2015:117, paras 73 and 74 and the case-law cited therein