JUDGMENT OF THE EUROPEAN UNION CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL

(First Chamber)

3 December 2013

Case F‑36/13

CT

v

Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency (EACEA)

(Civil service — Temporary staff — Contract for an indefinite period — Termination — Adverse reflection on position — Breakdown in the relationship of trust)

Application:      under Article 270 TFEU, in which CT seeks, inter alia, annulment of the decision of the Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency (EACEA) of 24 July 2012 terminating his temporary contract for an indefinite period, and compensation for the damage suffered.

Held:      The action is dismissed. CT is to bear his own costs and is ordered to pay the costs incurred by the Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency.

Summary

1.      Officials — Members of the temporary staff — Termination of a contract concluded for an indefinite period — Justification based on breakdown in the relationship of trust — Judicial review — Limits

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

2.      Officials — Rights and obligations — Duty of loyalty — Definition — Scope

(Staff Regulations, Art. 12; Conditions of Employment of Other Servants, Art. 11)

3.      Officials — Members of the temporary staff — Termination of a contract concluded for an indefinite period — Administration’s discretion — Obligation to initiate a disciplinary procedure — None

(Conditions of Employment of Other Servants, Arts 47(c), 49 to 50a)

1.      The early termination of a temporary staff contract may be based on conduct of the staff member concerned leading to breakdown in the relationship of trust between that person and the authority empowered to conclude contracts of employment. Review by the European Union judicature of the lawfulness of a decision terminating a contract is confined to ensuring that there has been no manifest error or misuse of powers.

(see para. 43)

See:

12 December 2000, T‑223/99 Dejaiffe v OHIM, paras 50 to 53

7 November 2011, T‑283/08 P Longinidis v Cedefop, paras 83 and 84

2.      Article 12 of the Staff Regulations specifically sets out the duty of loyalty requiring an official not just to refrain from conduct likely to prejudice the dignity and respect due to the institution and its authorities, but also to conduct himself in a manner that is beyond suspicion in order that the relationship of trust between that institution and himself may at all times be maintained.

The respect which an official owes to his position is not confined to the particular time at which he carries out a specific task but is expected from him under all circumstances.

(see paras 47-48)

See:

19 May 1999, T‑34/96 and T‑163/96 Connolly v Commission, para. 130 and the case-law cited

8 November 2007, F‑40/05 Andreasen v Commission, para. 233 and the case-law cited; 11 September 2013, F‑126/11 de Brito Sequeira Carvalho v Commission, para. 91

3.      Even in the event of misconduct capable of justifying the dismissal of a member of the temporary staff on disciplinary grounds, the authority empowered to conclude contracts of employment is under no obligation to initiate a disciplinary procedure against the staff member concerned rather than using the possibility of unilaterally terminating the contract provided for in Article 47(c) of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants. The decision to terminate the contract of a member of the temporary staff under Article 47(c) of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants rather than Articles 49 to 50a of those Conditions concerning disciplinary measures is within the scope of the administration’s wide discretion.

(see para. 54)

See:

Dejaiffe v OHIM, para. 38

Longinidis v Cedefop, para. 100 and the case-law cited