62008FJ0055 - EN - EUR-Lex - European Union

Carlo De Nicola v European Investment Bank (EIB). Public service - Promotion - Action for damages - Admissibility. Case F-55/08. Judgment of the Civil ... × Skiptomaincontent ThisdocumentisanexcerptfromtheEUR-Lexwebsite Menu EUlaw Treaties Treatiescurrentlyinforce Foundingtreaties AccessionTreaties Othertreatiesandprotocols Chronologicaloverview Legalacts Consolidatedtexts Internationalagreements Preparatorydocuments EFTAdocuments Lawmakingprocedures SummariesofEUlegislation BrowsebyEUinstitutions EuropeanParliament EuropeanCouncil CounciloftheEuropeanUnion EuropeanCommission CourtofJusticeoftheEuropeanUnion EuropeanCentralBank EuropeanCourtofAuditors EuropeanEconomicandSocialCommittee EuropeanCommitteeoftheRegions BrowsebyEuroVoc EUcase-law Case-law Reportsofcases Directoryofcase-law OfficialJournal AccesstotheOfficialJournal Legallybindingprinteditions Specialedition Nationallawandcase-law Nationaltransposition Nationalcase-law JUREcase-law Information News LatestdevelopmentsonEUR-Lex Statistics ELIregister AboutELI Technicalinformation ELIimplementationoverview ResourcesforimplementingELI ELIhighlights ELItestimonials Legislationinschema.org EUbudgetonline Quicksearch Usequotationmarkstosearchforan"exactphrase".Appendanasterisk(*)toasearchtermtofindvariationsofit(transp*,32019R*).Useaquestionmark(?)insteadofasinglecharacterinyoursearchtermtofindvariationsofit(ca?efindscase,cane,care).     Searchtips Needmoresearchoptions?Usethe Advancedsearch Youarehere EUROPA EUR-Lexhome EUR-Lex-62008FJ0055-EN Document 62008FJ0055 Help Printthispage Text Documentinformation Summary SavetoMyitems Permanentlink Bookmarkthisitem Downloadnotice Followthisdocument ​ JudgmentoftheCivilServiceTribunal(FirstChamber)of30November2009.#CarloDeNicolavEuropeanInvestmentBank(EIB).#Publicservice-Promotion-Actionfordamages-Admissibility.#CaseF-55/08. JudgmentoftheCivilServiceTribunal(FirstChamber)of30November2009.CarloDeNicolavEuropeanInvestmentBank(EIB).Publicservice-Promotion-Actionfordamages-Admissibility.CaseF-55/08. JudgmentoftheCivilServiceTribunal(FirstChamber)of30November2009.CarloDeNicolavEuropeanInvestmentBank(EIB).Publicservice-Promotion-Actionfordamages-Admissibility.CaseF-55/08. EuropeanCourtReports–StaffCases2009I-A-1-00469;II-A-1-02529 ECLIidentifier:ECLI:EU:F:2009:159 Expandall Collapseall Languagesandformatsavailable   Languageofthecase Language BG ES CS DA DE ET EL EN FR GA HR IT   LV LT HU MT NL PL PT RO SK SL FI SV   HTML EN ToggleDropdown BG ES CS DA DE ET EL EN FR GA HR IT LV LT HU MT NL PL PT RO SK SL FI SV   PDF EN ToggleDropdown BG ES CS DA DE ET EL EN FR GA HR IT LV LT HU MT NL PL PT RO SK SL FI SV Multilingualdisplay Language1 English(en) Bulgarian(bg) Spanish(es) Czech(cs) Danish(da) German(de) Estonian(et) Greek(el) English(en) French(fr) Italian(it) Latvian(lv) Lithuanian(lt) Hungarian(hu) Maltese(mt) Dutch(nl) Polish(pl) Portuguese(pt) Romanian(ro) Slovak(sk) Slovenian(sl) Finnish(fi) Swedish(sv) Language2 Pleasechoose Bulgarian(bg) Spanish(es) Czech(cs) Danish(da) German(de) Estonian(et) Greek(el) English(en) French(fr) Italian(it) Latvian(lv) Lithuanian(lt) Hungarian(hu) Maltese(mt) Dutch(nl) Polish(pl) Portuguese(pt) Romanian(ro) Slovak(sk) Slovenian(sl) Finnish(fi) Swedish(sv) Language3 Pleasechoose Pleasechoose Bulgarian(bg) Spanish(es) Czech(cs) Danish(da) German(de) Estonian(et) Greek(el) English(en) French(fr) Italian(it) Latvian(lv) Lithuanian(lt) Hungarian(hu) Maltese(mt) Dutch(nl) Polish(pl) Portuguese(pt) Romanian(ro) Slovak(sk) Slovenian(sl) Finnish(fi) Swedish(sv) Display Text JUDGMENTOFTHECIVILSERVICETRIBUNAL (FirstChamber) 30November2009 CaseF-55/08 CarloDeNicola v EuropeanInvestmentBank (Civilservice–StaffoftheEuropeanInvestmentBank–Assessment–Promotion–Sicknessinsurance–Repaymentofmedicalexpenses–Psychologicalharassment–Dutytohaveregardforthewelfareofofficials–Actionsfordamages–JurisdictionoftheTribunal–Admissibility) Application: broughtunderArticle 41oftheStaffRegulationsoftheEuropeanInvestmentBank,inwhichMr DeNicolaseeks,inparticular, first,annulmentofthedecisionoftheAppealsCommitteeoftheEuropeanInvestmentBankof14 December2007rejectinghis appealseeking,first,thereassessmentofthemarkhewasgivenfor2006and,second,annulmentoftheBank’sdecisionsof 13 July2007concerningpromotionsdecideduponfor2006insofarastheyfailtopromotehimtofunction D;second,annulment ofhis2006assessmentreportandofthedecisionsof13 July2007insofarastheyfailtopromotehimtothatfunction; third,adeclarationthathewasthevictimofpsychologicalharassment;fourth,anorderthattheBankcompensatehimfor thedamageheconsidershesufferedasaresultofthatharassment;andfinally,annulmentofthedecisionrefusingtopay certainmedicalexpensesforlasertreatment. Held: Theactionisdismissed.Theapplicantisorderedtobearthecosts. Summary 1.      Officials–StaffoftheEuropeanInvestmentBank–Actions–Actionagainstadecisionrejectingacomplaint–Admissibility (StaffRegulations,Arts 90and 91) 2.      Officials–StaffoftheEuropeanInvestmentBank–Reportsprocedure (StaffRegulationsoftheEuropeanInvestmentBank,Art. 22) 3.      Officials–StaffoftheEuropeanInvestmentBank–Annualassessmentreport (StaffRegulations,Art. 91) 4.      Officials–StaffoftheEuropeanInvestmentBank–Assessment–Practicalassessmentguide 5.      Officials–Actions–Pleaofillegality–Admissibility (Art. 241 EC;StaffRegulations,Art. 91) 6.      Officials–StaffoftheEuropeanInvestmentBank–Assessment–AppealsCommittee (StaffRegulationsoftheEuropeanInvestmentBank,Art. 22) 7.      Officials–StaffoftheEuropeanInvestmentBank–Socialsecurity–Sicknessinsurance–Medicalexpenses–Repayment– Refusal–Challengetotheopinionofthemedicaladviser (StaffRegulationsoftheEuropeanInvestmentBank,Art. 35) 8.      Officials–StaffoftheEuropeanInvestmentBank–Actions–ApplicationbyanalogyofArticle91(1)oftheStaffRegulations (Art. 236 EC;StaffRegulations,Art. 91;StaffRegulationsoftheEuropeanInvestmentBank,Art. 41) 1.      ClaimsdirectedagainsttheopinionofastaffassessmentAppealsCommitteesetupwithintheEuropeanInvestmentBankhave theeffectofbringingbeforetheCommunityjudicaturetheassessmentreportsagainstwhichsuchadministrativeappealshave beenlodged. (seepara.84) See: T‑7/98,T‑208/98andT‑109/99De NicolavEIB[2001]ECR-SCI‑A‑49andII‑185,para. 132 2.      AccordingtoArticle 22oftheStaffRegulationsoftheEuropeanInvestmentBank,theproceduretobefollowedfortheannual performanceappraisalofeachstaffmember‘shallbedeterminedbyaninternaldecision’oftheBank.Intheabsenceofany referencetoadocumentotherthanastaffnotice,itisclearthatitwasbythatnoticethattheBankdeterminedtheannual appraisalprocedure,andthatthestaffnoticeandthepracticalappraisalguideattachedtoitconstituteabodyofbinding rulesfromwhichtheBankcannotdepartwithoutcommittinganunlawfulact.Evenifthatstaffnoticewerenotthe‘internal decision’referredtobytheStaffRegulations,itwouldnottherebybedeprivedofitsbindingscope,giventhatitmust beregardedattheveryleastasaninternaldirectivebywhichtheBankimposedonitselfaruleofconduct,albeitonly forguidance,butfromwhichitcannotdepartwithoutexplainingthereasonswhichledittodoso,ifitisnottoinfringe theprincipleofequaltreatment. Wherethepracticalappraisalguidesetsadeadlineforholdingappraisalinterviews,therefore,thatdeadlinemustbemet. Similarly,astheguiderequiresthestaffmemberconcernedtofillout,priortotheappraisalinterview,certainsections ofthedraftappraisalreportforwardedtohimbythereportingofficer,hewillrequireacertaintimetothinkaboutthose sectionsanddrawuptherelevantentries,andsohemustbegivenareasonableperiodbetweenreceivingthedraftappraisal reportandattendingtheinterview;aperiodofafewminutescannotberegardedasreasonable. However,irregularitiesconcerningthedateonwhichtheappraisalinterviewwasheldandtheperiodallowedfortheofficial tosubmithiscommentsonthedraftappraisalreportarenot,inthemselves,suchastojustifycriticismofthecontested reportgiventhat,first,thelengthofthereportsprocedureandthedelayswhichbuiltupinthecourseofthatprocedure donotinthemselvesaffectthelegalityoftheappraisalreport,and,second,theofficialwasgivenanopportunitytosubmit hisobservations,viewsandcommentsonthecontesteddraftreportatasecondappraisalinterview. (seeparas105,106,109,112,113,121-124) See: 129/82and274/82LuxvCourtofAuditors[1984]ECR 4127,para. 20 T-18/93MarcatovCommission[1994]ECR-SC I‑A‑215andII‑681,para. 36;T-165/01McAuleyvCouncil[2003]ECR-SC I‑A‑193andII‑963,para. 44;T-50/04MichavCommission[2005]ECR-SCI‑A‑339andII‑1499,para. 45;T‑155/03,T‑157/03andT‑331/03CwikvCommission[2005]ECR-SC I‑A‑411andII‑1865,paras 159to 161 3.      ItisnotfortheCommunityjudicaturetosubstituteitsassessmentforthatofthepersonsresponsibleforappraisingthe staffoftheEuropeanInvestmentBank.TheEIB,likeotherinstitutionsandbodiesoftheCommunity,enjoyswidediscretion inappraisingtheworkofmembersofitsstaff.JudicialreviewbytheCommunityjudicatureoftheassessmentscontainedin theannualperformanceappraisalofamemberoftheBank’sstaffrelatesonlytopossibleproceduralirregularities,manifest factualerrorsinsuchassessmentsandanymisuseofpower. (seepara.126) See: T‑178/00andT‑341/00PflugradtvECB[2002]ECR II‑4035,para. 69 4.      Theprovisionofthepracticalappraisalguideattachedtothestaffnoticedeterminingtheappraisalprocedurewithinthe EuropeanInvestmentBank,accordingtowhichobjectivesmustbe‘acceptedbythestaffmemberreportedon’,maynotbeconstrued asmeaningthat,withouttheagreementofthepersonconcerned,theappraisalreportwouldbeinvalidated.Ifthatinterpretation wereaccepted,theprovisionwouldhavetheeffectofobligingtheadministrationtoobtaintheagreementofallstaffmembers onthetypeoftasksentrustedtothemandwouldputthosestaffmembersinapositiontochoosewhichobjectivestopursue, whichwouldbemanifestlycontrarytotherulesofsoundadministrationandthehierarchicalprinciple. (seepara.131) 5.      Whileanofficialis,inprinciple,entitledtomountanindirectchallengetothelegalityofprovisionsofgeneralapplication adoptedbyaCommunityinstitutionorbody,thoughsuchachallengedoesnotconstituteanapplicationforaninjunction, itisonthetwofoldconditionthattheindividualdecisionwhichheseekstohavesetasidewastakendirectlypursuantto thoseprovisionsandthatthepleaofillegalityiscapable,byitsoutcome,ofbringinghimanadvantage. (seepara.172) See: C‑432/98 PandC‑433/98 PCouncilvChvatalandOthers[2000]ECR I‑8535,para. 33 T-135/05CampolivCommission[2006]ECR-SCI‑A‑2‑297andII‑A‑2‑1527,para. 132 6.      TheAppealsCommitteetowhichamemberoftheEuropeanInvestmentBank’sstaffmayapplyinconnectionwithhisannualappraisal doesnotactastheequivalentofahierarchicalsuperiortotheBank’scompetentauthorities.Itsdecisiondoesnotreplace thatofthecompetentauthorities.ThetaskoftheCommitteeisquasijudicial,reviewingthelegalityofthedecisionsreferred toitonthebasisofconsiderationscomparabletothoseusedbytheCommunityjudicature.Inparticular,itascertainswhether theprocedurefordrawinguptheappraisalreportswaslawfulandwhethertheBankhasmanifestlyinfringedthelimitsof itsdiscretion,whichisparticularlybroadasregardsappraisalandpromotion. WheretheCommunityjudicature,havingconsideredthelegalityofthesamedecisionsasthosereferredtotheAppealsCommittee, reachesthesameconclusionastheCommittee,whichisthatthecomplaintslodgedagainstthosedecisionsmustberejected, thereisnofurtherinterestfortheCommunityjudicaturetoadjudicateontheclaimsdirectedagainstthedecisionofthe Committee.ThoseclaimsareindissociablefromthoseseekingtheannulmentoftheBank’sdecisions,whichconstitutethesubject-matter oftheproceedings. EvenifthelegalityoftheAppealsCommittee’sdecisioncouldbeconsideredindependentlyandthatdecisionwasdeclared unlawful,itsannulmentwouldstillleavethecontestedreport,whichthedecisiondidnotreplace.Itcouldnothavethe effectofforcingtheBanktoreferbacktotheAppealsCommitteethechallengebroughtbytheapplicantagainstthecontested report,sincetheCommunityjudicaturehaditselfalreadyadjudicatedonthatchallenge. (seeparas196,197,199) 7.      Itfollowsfromsection IIIofAnnex IItotheinternalprovisionsonhealthinsurance,adoptedpursuanttoArticle35of theStaffRegulationsoftheEuropeanInvestmentBank,thatamemberoftheBank’sstaffwhointendstochallengetherefusal toreimbursemedicalexpenseswhichhehasincurredmustusethespecificlegalremedyavailabletohimforthatpurpose. Itwouldbecontrarytotheobjectivepursuedbythoseprovisions,whichisthatindependentdoctorsshouldbeusedtohelp toresolvemedicaldisputes,ifastaffmembercouldlegitimatelychallengetheopinionofthemedicaladviseroutsidethe procedurespeciallydesignedforthatpurpose. (seepara.212) See: F‑97/07De FaysvCommission[2008]ECR-SC I‑A‑1‑0000andII‑A‑1‑0000,para. 56 8.      TheEIB,whichisauthorisedtoestablishtherulesapplicabletoitsemployeesinaccordancewiththeProtocolontheStatute oftheEuropeanInvestmentBank,hasthepowertodeterminetheconditionsinwhichmembersofitsstaffmaybringproceedings beforetheCourtofJusticeunderArticle236EC. Article41oftheBank’sStaffRegulations,concerninglegalremedies,merelyreferstothefactthattheCourthasjurisdiction andintroducesaconciliationprocedure.Itdoesnot,therefore,containanyspecificrulethatwouldhavetheeffectofrestricting orextendingtheCourt’sjurisdiction,which,forofficials,flowsfromArticle91oftheStaffRegulationsandtheconsistent case-law. IntheabsenceofanyparticularprovisionoftheStaffRegulationsoftheEuropeanInvestmentBankonthesubject,itis necessary,nottoapplydirectlytherulesoftheStaffRegulationsofOfficials,whichwoulddisregardthespecificnature oftherulesapplicabletomembersoftheBank’sstaff,buttobeguidedbythoserulesandapplythembyanalogy,sincepurely internaldisputesbetweentheBankanditsemployeesare,bytheirnature,comparabletodisputesbetweentheCommunityinstitutions andtheirofficialsorotherstaff. ItisthereforenecessarytoapplybyanalogytoactionsbymembersoftheEuropeanInvestmentBank’sstafftheruleresulting fromArticle91(1)oftheStaffRegulationsofOfficials,accordingtowhichtheCommunityjudicaturehasnojurisdiction wheretheactionbeforeitisnotdirectedagainstameasureadoptedbytheadministrationtorejecttheapplicant’sclaims. (seeparas233-236,239) See: De NicolavEIB,paras 100,101and 107 Top