JUDGMENT OF THE CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL

(Second Chamber)

15 April 2010

Case F-4/09

Jorge de Britto Patricio-Dias

v

European Commission

(Civil service — Officials — Posting — Reassignment — Interests of the service — Correspondence between grade and post — Rights of the defence — Reasons stated)

Application: brought under Articles 236 EC and 152 EA, in which Mr de Britto Patricio-Dias seeks, first, annulment of the appointing authority’s decision of 11 April 2008 reassigning him to unit B.3 ‘Logistics, innovation and co-modality’ of the ‘Energy and Transport’ Directorate-General of the Commission of the European Communities and, secondly, annulment of the appointing authority’s decision of 21 October 2008 rejecting his complaint.

Held: The action is dismissed. The applicant is ordered to pay all the costs.

Summary

1.      Officials — Organisation of departments — Assignment of staff — Reassignment — Administration’s discretion — Limits

(Staff Regulations, Art. 7(1))

2.      Officials — Organisation of departments — Assignment of staff — Reassignment in the interest of the service — Obligation to state reasons — None

3.      Officials — Decision adversely affecting an official — Obligation to state the reasons on which the decision is based — Scope

(Staff Regulations, Art. 25)

1.      Although the Staff Regulations do not use the term ‘reassignment’, decisions to reassign are subject, like transfers, as regards the protection of the rights and legitimate interests of the officials concerned, to the rules of Article 7(1) of the Staff Regulations.

The institutions have a wide discretion in the organisation of their departments according to the tasks conferred on them and in the assignment, in view of those tasks, of staff who are made available to them, on condition, however, that that assignment is carried out in the interest of the service and with respect for equivalence between grade and post, the perception of the person concerned being irrelevant in that respect.

Having regard to the extent of the institutions’ discretion in evaluating the interests of the service, the review undertaken by the Tribunal of whether the condition regarding the interests of the service has been respected must be confined to the question whether the appointing authority remained within reasonable limits and did not use its discretion in a manifestly wrong way.

Moreover, while it is true that the administration has every interest in assigning officials in the light of their abilities and personal preferences, it cannot be said that officials thereby acquire an entitlement to exercise or to retain specific duties.

(see paras 35-38, 55)

See:

218/80 Kruse v Commission [1981] ECR 2417, para. 7; 19/87 Hecq v Commission [1988] ECR 1681, para. 6

T‑76/03 Meister v OHIM [2004] ECR‑SC I‑A‑325 and II‑1477, para. 64; T‑339/03 Clotuche v Commission [2007] ECR‑SC I‑A‑2‑29 and II‑A‑2‑179, paras 35 and 47; T‑118/04 and T‑134/04 Caló v Commission [2007] ECR‑SC I‑A‑2‑37 and II‑A‑2‑253, para. 99

F‑119/06 Kerstens v Commission [2008] ECR‑SC I‑A‑1‑147 and II‑A‑1‑787, paras 84 and 98, on appeal before the General Court of the European Union, Case T‑266/08 P

2.      If a mere measure of internal organisation taken in the interest of the service, such as a reassignment, does not affect the official’s position under the Staff Regulations or infringe the principle that the post to which he is assigned should correspond to his grade, the administration is not required to provide a statement of reasons for it.

(see para. 61)

See:

Clotuche v Commission, paras 153 and 195; Caló v Commission, paras 126 and 142

3.      Grounds for a decision are sufficiently stated when the measure has been taken in circumstances known to the official concerned, which enable him to apprehend the scope of a measure taken in his regard. That is the case where the circumstances in which the act in question was adopted, as well as departmental memoranda and other communications accompanying it, make it possible to know the essential factors which influenced the administration in its decision.

(see para. 62)

See:

T‑218/02 Napoli Buzzanca v Commission [2005] ECR‑SC I‑A‑267 and II‑1221, para. 65