Language of document : ECLI:EU:F:2013:22

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

26 February 2013

Case F‑74/11

Aleksandra Bojc Golob

v

European Commission

(Civil service — Member of the contract staff — Contract of indefinite duration — Termination)

Application:      brought under Article 270 TFEU, applicable to the EAEC Treaty pursuant to Article 106a thereof, whereby Ms Bojc Golob seeks annulment of the decision of the authority authorised to conclude contracts of employment of the European Commission (‘the AACC’) of 30 September 2010 terminating her contract of indefinite duration and, as far as necessary, annulment of the decision of the AACC of 13 April 2011 rejecting the complaint submitted on 20 December 2010 pursuant to Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union (‘the Staff Regulations’).

Held: The action is dismissed. The applicant is to bear her own costs and is ordered to pay the costs incurred by the Commission.

Summary

1.      Actions brought by officials — Pleas in law — Lack of or insufficient reasoning — Separate plea from that relating to substantive legality

(Art. 296 TFEU)

2.      Officials — Protection of health and safety — Framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP — Directive 1999/70 — Scope — Fixed-term contract of employment in the public sector — Included — Contract of employment of indefinite duration — Not included

(Council Directive 1999/70, Annex, Clause 1)

3.      Officials — Members of the contract staff — Protection of health and safety — Stable employment — Purpose not binding — Termination of a contract concluded for an indefinite period — Whether permitted

(Conditions of Employment of Other Servants, Art. 47(c)(i))

1.      The examination of the existence and the scope of the reasons on which a Commission decision is based forms part of the review of essential procedural requirements and of the formal legality of that decision. It must be distinguished from the examination of the merits of the grounds of the decision, which forms part of the review of its substantive legality.

(see para. 31)

See:

2 April 1998, C‑367/95 P Commission v Sytraval and Brink’s France, para. 67

18 January 2005, T‑93/02 Confédération nationale du Crédit mutuel v Commission, para. 67

2.      The purpose of the framework agreement on fixed-term work annexed to Directive 1999/70 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP is, first, to improve the quality of fixed-term work by ensuring the application of the principle of non-discrimination and, second, to establish a framework to prevent abuse arising from the use of successive fixed-term employment contracts or relationships.

Thus, Directive 1999/70 and the framework agreement are intended to apply to fixed-term employment contracts and relationships concluded with the public authorities and other public-sector bodies and seek to place limits on successive recourse to fixed-term employment contracts, a category regarded as a potential source of abuse to the disadvantage of workers. Conversely, the directive and the framework agreement are not relevant in assessing the situation of persons who have had the advantage of a contract of indefinite duration.

(see paras 38-40)

See:

4 July 2006, C‑212/04 Adeneler and Others, paras 54 and 63

3.      While stable employment is regarded as a major element in the protection of workers, it does not constitute a general principle of law in the light of which the lawfulness of a measure adopted by an institution may be assessed. Consequently, that principle cannot be interpreted as prohibiting the institution from terminating a contract of indefinite duration in accordance with Article 47(c)(i) of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union.

(see paras 42-43)

See:

22 November 2005, C‑144/04 Mangold, para. 64