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

21 April 2015

Case F‑87/12 RENV

Geoffroy Alsteens

v

European Commission

(Civil service — Referral back after setting aside — Temporary staff — Renewal of contract — Six year rule)

Application:      under Article 270 TFEU, applicable to the EAEC Treaty pursuant to Article 106a thereof, in which Mr Alsteens sought annulment of ‘the [European] Commission’s decision of 18 November 2011 in so far as it limits the extension period of [his] contract as a member of the temporary staff to 31 March 2012’.

Held:      The action is dismissed. Mr Alsteens is to bear his own costs incurred in Cases F‑87/12, T‑373/13 P and F‑87/12 RENV and to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission in Case F‑87/12. The European Commission is to bear its own costs in Cases T‑373/13 P and F‑87/12 RENV.

Summary

1.      Officials — Members of the temporary staff — Duration of contract — Six year rule — Possibility of derogation in the interests of the service — Obligation to consider the possibility of applying the exception — Scope

(Staff Regulations, Art. 90; Conditions of Employment of Other Servants, Arts 2(a) and (b) and 8)

2.      Officials — Members of the temporary staff — Recruitment — Non-renewal of a fixed-term contract — Obligation to consider the possibility of reassigning the staff member concerned — None

(Conditions of Employment of Other Servants, Arts 2, 8 and 47(b)(i))

1.      With regard to extending the fixed-term contract of a member of the temporary staff, it is for the authority empowered to conclude contracts of employment to consider, where an express application has been made to extend the contract beyond the period of six years laid down in an internal decision of general application, whether the interests of the service justify a derogation from the six year rule.

Where the application to extend the contract is for a fixed period not exceeding six years, however, the authority empowered to conclude contracts of employment is not called upon to take a decision on the possibility of such a derogation.

There is nothing to prevent the staff member concerned from requesting the authority, under Article 90(1) of the Staff Regulations, to consider the possibility of extending his contract beyond the six year period in the interests of the service.

(see paras 54, 57, 62)

See:

Order in Vakalopoulou v Commission, T‑97/00, EU:T:2001:38, para. 14

Judgment in Commission v Petrilli, T‑143/09 P, EU:T:2010:531

Judgment in BR v Commission, F‑13/12, EU:F:2013:39

2.      Observance of the duty to have regard to the interests of staff and the concept of the interests of the service do not require the authority empowered to conclude contracts of employment first to consider the possibility of redeploying the staff member concerned to another post before deciding not to renew his temporary staff contract.

(see para. 66)

See:

Judgment in Commission v Macchia, T‑368/12 P, EU:T:2014:266, para. 57

Judgment in Macchia v Commission, F‑63/11, EU:F:2012:83, para. 60