JUDGMENT OF THE EUROPEAN UNION CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL

(Second Chamber)

18 September 2014

Case F‑7/13

Luc Radelet

v

European Commission

(Civil service — Officials posted to a third country — Articles 5 and 23 of Annex X to the Staff Regulations — Provision of accommodation by the institution — Authorisation given to the official to rent accommodation — Action for compensation — Non-material damage — Allocation of uncomfortable and insalubrious accommodation — Lack of proof)

Application:      under Article 270 TFEU, applicable to the EAEC Treaty pursuant to Article 106a thereof, in which Mr Radelet essentially seeks, first, annulment of the decision of 26 March 2012 by which the European Commission rejected his claim for compensation for the non-material damage resulting from ‘the difficulties encountered when taking up residence in Antananarivo [(Madagascar)]’, and, second, an order that the Commission pay compensation for that non-material damage.

Held:      The action is dismissed. Mr Radelet is to bear his own costs and is ordered to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.

Summary

1.      Actions brought by officials — Action for damages — Application for annulment of the pre-litigation decision rejecting the claim for damages — Application not independent of the claim for damages

(Staff Regulations, Arts 90 and 91)

2.      Officials — Non-contractual liability of the institutions — Conditions — Burden of proof — Document drawn up ex parte — No evidential value

(Art. 340, second para., TFEU)

3.      Officials — Administration’s duty to have regard for the interests of officials — Principle of sound administration — Scope — Taking into account of official’s interests — Limits

(Staff Regulations, Art. 24; Annex X, Arts 5 and 23)

1.      An institution’s decision rejecting a claim for compensation forms an integral part of the preliminary administrative procedure which precedes an action to establish liability before the Civil Service Tribunal and, consequently, claims for annulment of such a decision cannot be assessed in isolation from the claims relating to compensation. The measure setting out the position adopted by an institution’s administration during the pre-litigation stage only has the effect of allowing the party who has suffered damage to apply to the Civil Service Tribunal for compensation.

(see para. 57)

See:

judgment in Verheyden v Commission, F‑72/06, EU:F:2009:40, para. 30

2.      In an action for compensation brought by an official, the Courts of the European Union may not take account, when giving judgment, of a document drawn up ex parte, such as an expert’s report commissioned by the applicant and drawn up solely at his request.

(see para. 90)

3.      The duty to have regard to the interests of officials and the principle of sound administration imply in particular that when the competent authority takes a decision concerning the situation of an official or other staff member, even in the exercise of a broad discretion, it should take into consideration all the factors which may affect its decision, and that when doing so, it must take into account not only the interests of the service but also those of the official or staff member concerned.

However, the taking into account of the personal interests of the official or staff member should not go so far as to require the administration to disregard its own internal rules.

Consequently, given that the entitlement to furniture is provided for in Article 5 of Annex X to the Staff Regulations, when the institution provides an official posted to a third country with accommodation, and not in Article 23 of that annex, when the official is authorised to rent accommodation, the administration does not infringe its duty to have regard to the interests of staff or the principle of sound administration when it refuses to allow him to use, in the accommodation which he is authorised to rent, furniture purchased, as part of the entitlement to furniture, for accommodation provided for officials.

(see paras 97, 110-112)

See:

order in Verheyden v Commission, F‑54/10, EU:F:2011:8, paras 36 and 37 and the case-law cited therein