ORDER OF THE EUROPEAN UNION CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL

(First Chamber)

23 October 2013

Case F‑123/12

Maria-Pia Palleschi

v

European Commission

(Civil service — Contract staff for auxiliary tasks — Article 3b of the CEOS — Application for reclassification of the contract as a temporary contract for an indefinite period — Action manifestly devoid of any basis in law)

Application:      under Article 270 TFEU, applicable to the EAEC Treaty pursuant to Article 106a thereof, in which Ms Palleschi seeks, in essence, annulment of the decision of 4 January 2012 by which the authority empowered to conclude contracts of employment (‘AECE’) rejected her request that her contract as a member of the contract staff for auxiliary tasks be reclassified as a temporary contract for an indefinite period.

Held:      The action is dismissed as manifestly devoid of any basis in law. Ms Palleschi is to bear her own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.

Summary

1.      Officials — Auxiliary staff — Characteristics and purpose of auxiliary staff contracts

(Conditions of Employment of Other Servants, Art. 3b, first para.)

2.      Officials — Auxiliary staff — Reclassification of a contract as a member of the contract staff for auxiliary tasks as a temporary contract — Conditions — Burden of proof

(Conditions of Employment of Other Servants, Art. 3b, first para.)

3.      Officials — Conditions of Employment of Other Servants — Member of the contract staff for auxiliary tasks — Possibility of renewal depending on the needs of the institution concerned

(Conditions of Employment of Other Servants, Art. 88)

1.      It is clear from the first paragraph of Article 3b of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants that the main purpose of auxiliary staff contracts is to allow staff to be engaged for a fixed period in order to meet transient or occasional administrative needs, which may sometimes also be recurrent. Staff engaged on this basis are, accordingly, required either to undertake tasks which, by their nature, are connected with non-permanent duties or to cover the temporary absence of an established official.

(see para. 27)

See:

21 September 2011, T‑325/09 P Adjemian and Others v Commission, para. 86 and the case-law cited

14 March 2013, F‑63/08 Christoph and Others v Commission, paras 68 and 69

2.      For periods completed as a member of the contract staff for auxiliary purposes to count the same as periods completed as a member of the temporary staff, the staff member concerned is required to prove, first, that posts corresponding to the duties that he has actually carried out were included at that time in the list of posts annexed to the section of the budget relating to the institution concerned and that those posts were available and, secondly, that the duties he carried out corresponded specifically to permanent tasks defined as public service.

In the absence of any provision in the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants determining means of proof, the staff member concerned may demonstrate that he has performed permanent European Union public service tasks by any conclusive means, including through a body of concordant evidence. However, mere assertions uncorroborated by relevant evidence cannot be regarded as adequate for the purposes of reclassifying the contract.

(see paras 28, 31)

See:

Adjemian and Others v Commission, para. 88 and the case-law cited

17 November 2009, F‑57/08 Palazzo v Commission, paras 44 to 48

3.      In an administration with a large workforce it is inevitable that transient or occasional administrative needs in connection with specific or urgent tasks may recur over time. Such circumstances do not, however, preclude the services concerned using for particular periods persons who possess the specific qualifications or knowledge corresponding to those needs. Those circumstances constitute objective reasons justifying both the fixed term of auxiliary staff contracts and their renewal depending, as appropriate, on the continuation or occurrence of those needs.

(see para. 30)

See:

11 July 2002, T‑137/99 and T‑18/00 Martínez Páramo and Others v Commission, para. 95 and the case-law cited

Christoph and Others v Commission, para. 69 and the case-law cited