Case T‑160/17
RY
v
European Commission
Judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber, Extended Composition), 10 January 2019
(Civil service — Temporary staff — Article 2(c) of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants — Contract for an indefinite period — Dismissal — Breakdown in the relationship of trust — Right to be heard — Burden of proof)
1. EU law — Principles — Rights of defence — Observance thereof in the context of administrative proceedings — Scope
(Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 41(2)(a))
(see paragraphs 21-28)
2. Officials — Members of the temporary staff — Temporary staff falling under Article 2(c) of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants — Member of the temporary staff employed in the Cabinet of a Member of the Commission — Breakdown in the relationship of trust — Dismissal decision — Observance of the rights of the defence — Obligation to hear the person concerned
(Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 41(2)(a); Conditions of Employment of Other Servants, Art. 2(c))
(see paragraphs 32-37, 40)
3. Officials — Members of the temporary staff — Temporary staff falling under Article 2(c) of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants — Member of the temporary staff employed in the Cabinet of a Member of the Commission — Dismissal on grounds relating to the relationship of mutual trust — Discretion of the authority authorised to conclude contracts of employment — Scope
(Conditions of Employment of Other Servants, Art. 2(c))
(see paragraph 38)
4. Officials — Members of the temporary staff — Principles — Rights of defence — Scope — Obligation to hear the person concerned before adopting a dismissal decision on grounds relating to the relationship of mutual trust — Burden of proof
(Conditions of Employment of Other Servants, Art. 2(c))
(see paragraphs 45, 48)
5. Officials — Members of the temporary staff — Termination of a contract concluded for an indefinite period — Decision adopted without first giving the interested party the opportunity to comment — Infringement of the right to be heard — Consequences
(Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 41(2)(a); Conditions of Employment of Other Servants, Art. 47)
(see paragraphs 51, 54, 56)
Résumé
In its judgment in RY v Commission (T‑160/17), delivered on 10 January 2019, the General Court annulled a Commission decision terminating — on the basis of a breach of the relationship of trust — the contract for an indefinite period of a member of the temporary staff, on the ground of a breach of that staff member’s right to be heard, as enshrined in Article 41(2)(a) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.
The person concerned, recruited as a member of the temporary staff under Article 2(c) of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union (‘the CEOS’), performed his duties in the cabinet of a Member of the Commission. Following the Commission’s decision to terminate his contract, the person concerned had submitted a complaint against that decision to the authority empowered to conclude contracts of employment (‘the AECC’) of the Commission, pursuant to Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union, on the ground, inter alia, that he had not been informed of the reasons that had led to his contract being terminated and that he had not been given an opportunity to state his views before the AECC. The AECC rejected that complaint, considering that the obligation to hear the person concerned before dismissal did not apply in the case of a member of the temporary staff recruited on the basis of Article 2(c) of the CEOS, where the decision to terminate the contract was taken on the ground of a breakdown in the relationship of trust.
The General Court held, first of all, that the specific nature of the duties carried out in the Cabinet of a Member of the Commission and the need to maintain relations of mutual confidence should not deprive the staff member concerned of the right to be heard before the adoption of a decision unilaterally terminating his contract on the grounds of a breakdown in the relationship of trust. The General Court noted that the right of the person concerned to be heard before the adoption of any individual decision affecting him adversely is expressly enshrined in Article 41(2)(a) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, which has the same legal value as the Treaties. It added that respect for the right to be heard is all the more necessary with regard to the termination of the contract for an indefinite period of a member of the temporary staff on the initiative of the administration, since such a measure, however justified it may be, constitutes an act with serious consequences for the person concerned. It stated that the Member of the Commission concerned might take the view, after that staff member has been given the opportunity to submit his observations, that the relationship of trust has ultimately not broken down. In addition, while it is not for the AECC to substitute its own assessment for that of the Member of the Commission concerned as regards the reality of the breakdown in the relationship of trust, the AECC must nevertheless, first, check whether the absence or loss of a relationship of trust has indeed been invoked, then ensure that the facts have been accurately stated and, lastly, ensure that, in view of the ground given, the request for termination is not vitiated by a breach of fundamental rights or by an abuse of powers. In that context, the AECC may, for example, take the view, in the light of the observations made by the person concerned, that special circumstances justify the consideration of measures other than dismissal.
Lastly, the Tribunal held that it is the AECC’s responsibility, where a member of the temporary staff alleges that his right to be heard was not respected, to prove that the person concerned was given the opportunity to submit his observations on the Commission’s intention to terminate his contract on the ground of a breakdown in the relationship of trust.