JUDGMENT OF THE GENERAL COURT (Appeal Chamber)

19 June 2012

Case T‑234/11 P

Oscar Orlando Arango Jaramillo and Others

v

European Investment Bank (EIB)

(Appeal — Civil service — EIB staff — Pensions — Contribution to the pension scheme — Dismissal of the action at first instance as manifestly inadmissible — Period allowed for instituting proceedings — Delay — Reasonable period)

Appeal:      against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (First Chamber) of 4 February 2011 in Case F‑34/10 Arango Jaramillo and Others v EIB [2010] ECR-SC, seeking to have that order set aside.

Held:      The appeal is dismissed. Mr Oscar Orlando Arango Jaramillo and the 34 other members of the staff of the European Investment Bank (EIB) whose names appear in the Annex are to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the EIB in these proceedings.

Summary

1.      Officials — European Investment Bank Staff — Actions — Time-limits — Reasonable period

(Art. 270 TFEU)

2.      Officials — European Investment Bank Staff — Actions — Time-limits — Requirement to institute proceedings within a reasonable period — Application of Article 91(3) of the Staff Regulations — Proceedings instituted after expiry of the three-month period — Requirement not satisfied

(Art. 270 TFUE; Staff Regulations, Art. 91)

3.      Judicial proceedings — Time-limit for instituting proceedings — Claim barred by lapse of time — Unforeseeable circumstances or force majeure — Meaning

(Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 45, second para.)

1.      Neither the FEU Treaty nor the Staff Regulations of the European Investment Bank, as adopted by its management committee in accordance with Article 29 of the EIB’s Rules of Procedure, contain any indication as to the time-limit applicable to proceedings between the bank and its staff. In order to strike the proper balance between, on the one hand, the right to effective judicial protection, which is a general principle of Union law and requires that the person concerned has a sufficient period to consider the lawfulness of the act adversely affecting him and, where applicable, to prepare his claim, and, on the other hand, the need for legal certainty which requires that, after a certain period has elapsed, the acts of Union bodies become definitive, it is necessary that such proceedings be brought before the courts of the Union within a reasonable time.

(see para. 22)

See:

T‑7/98, T‑208/98 and T‑109/99 De Nicola v EIB [2001] ECR-SC I‑A‑49 and II‑185, paras 97 to 99; T‑192/99 Dunnett and Others v EIB [2001] ECR II‑813, paras 51 to 53; T‑275/02 R D v EIB [2002] ECR-SC I‑A‑259 and II‑1295, paras 31 and 32

2.      An interpretation of case-law based on converse implication is permissible where any other interpretation would be neither appropriate nor compatible with the applicable general principles of Union law. Only a strict application of procedural rules laying down a limitation period can meet the requirement of legal certainty and the need to avoid any discrimination or arbitrary treatment in the administration of justice. It has been held, by analogy with the time-limit for instituting proceedings laid down in the third paragraph of Article 91 of the Statute, that a period of three months should, in principle, be considered reasonable for a member of EIB staff to institute proceedings to set aside an act of the EIB which adversely affects him. It follows by converse implication that any action brought by a member of staff member after the expiry of a three-month time limit, extended on account of distance by a period of 10 days, must, in principle, be considered not to have been brought within a reasonable period.

(see para. 27)

See:

9/56 Meroni v High Authority [1957 and 1958] ECR 133, para. 27; C‑426/10 P Bell & Ross v OHIM [2011] ECR I‑8849, paras 43, 54 and 55

T‑33/99 Méndez Pinedo v ECB [2000] ECR-SC I‑A‑63 and II‑273, paras 33 and 34; De Nicola v EIB, para. 107; D v EIB, para. 33 and the case‑law cited

3.      See the text of the decision.

(see para. 51)

See:

209/83 Ferriera Valsabbia v Commission [1984] ECR 3089, para. 22; C‑195/91 P Bayer v Commission [1994] ECR I‑5619, para. 31; C‑325/03 P Zuazaga Meabe v OHIM [2005] ECR I‑403, para. 25; C‑242/07 P Belgium v Commission [2007] ECR I‑9757, para. 17