![]() |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] [DONATE] | |||||||||
Court of Justice of the European Communities (including Court of First Instance Decisions) |
||||||||||
PLEASE SUPPORT BAILII & FREE ACCESS TO LAW
To maintain its current level of service, BAILII urgently needs the support of its users.
Since you use the site, please consider making a donation to celebrate BAILII's 25 years of providing free access to law. No contribution is too small. If every visitor this month gives just £5, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing this vital service.
Thank you for your support! | ||||||||||
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Court of Justice of the European Communities (including Court of First Instance Decisions) >> Gogos v Commission (Staff Regulations) [2010] EUECJ C-583/08 (20 May 2010) URL: https://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/EUECJ/2010/C58308.html Cite as: EU:C:2010:287, [2010] EUECJ C-583/08, ECLI:EU:C:2010:287, [2010] EUECJ C-583/8 |
[New search] [Printable version] [Help]
(Appeals Officials Internal competition for promotion from one category to another Appointment Classification in grade Article 31(2) of the Staff Regulations Unlimited jurisdiction Dispute of a financial character Length of proceedings before the General Court Reasonable time Claim for equitable compensation)
In Case C-583/08 P,
APPEAL under Article 56 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, brought on 22 December 2008,
Christos Gogos, official of the European Commission, residing in Waterloo (Belgium), represented by N. Korogiannakis and P. Katsimani, dikigoroi,
appellant,
the other party to the proceedings being:
European Commission, represented by J. Currall, acting as Agent, assisted by P.I. Anestis, dikigoros, with an address for service in Luxembourg,
defendant at first instance,
composed of A. Tizzano, President of the Chamber, E. Levits, A. Borg Barthet (Rapporteur), J.'J. Kasel and M. Safjan, Judges,
Advocate General: J. Kokott,
Registrar: L. Hewlett, Principal Administrator,
having regard to the written procedure and further to the hearing on 28 January 2010,
after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 4 March 2010
gives the following
Legal context
'1. Candidates ... shall be appointed as follows:
officials in Category A ...: to the starting grade of their category ...
2. However, the appointing authority may make exceptions to the foregoing provisions within the following limits:
...
(b) in respect of other grades [than grades A 1, A 2, A 3 and LA 3],
up to one third of the appointments to posts becoming vacant;
up to half the appointments to newly created posts.
...'
'An official shall be recruited at the first step in his grade.
However, the appointing authority may, taking account of the training and special experience for the post of the person concerned, allow additional seniority in his grade; this shall not exceed 72 months in grades A 1 to A 4, LA 3 and LA 4 and 48 months in other grades.'
'An official may be transferred from one service to another or promoted from one category to another only on the basis of a competition.'
'An official appointed to a higher grade shall, in his new grade, have the seniority corresponding to the notional step equal to or next above the notional step reached in his former grade, plus the amount of the two-yearly increment for his new grade.'
'The Court of Justice of the European Communities shall have jurisdiction in any dispute between the Communities and any person to whom these Staff Regulations apply regarding the legality of an act adversely affecting such person within the meaning of Article 90(2). In disputes of a financial character the Court of Justice shall have unlimited jurisdiction.'
Background to the dispute
'4 Christos Gogos, who had been in the service of the European Communities since 1981, was recruited by the Commission on 1 October 1986 as an official in Category B, grade 5, step 1.
5 In 1997 the applicant took part in internal competition COM/A/17/96 for promotion from Category B to Category A, for posts in career bracket A 7/A 6. Under the heading 'Conditions for admission to the competition' it was stated that officials and members of the temporary staff who were classified in one of the grades of Category B and who had at least seven years' seniority in that category were eligible to enter the competition. Under the heading 'Conditions of recruitment' it was stated that appointments would generally be to the starting grade of the career bracket.
6 By letter of 15 December 1997, the chairman of the selection board for that competition informed the applicant of the decision not to include him on the list of suitable candidates because his mark in the oral test was 24 out of 50 whereas the pass mark was 25.
7 In the action brought by the applicant in Case T-95/98 Gogos v Commission [2000] ECR'SC I-A-51 and II-219, the Court of First Instance annulled that decision of the selection board, inter alia on the ground that [the board] had not been able to guarantee the equal treatment of all the candidates during the oral tests of the competition in question.
8 Accordingly, the Commission called the applicant to another oral test on 25 September 2000. As the applicant failed that test he brought another action before the Court of First Instance, registered as Case T-97/01. Following an amicable settlement between the parties, the Commission undertook to extend, by way of exception and for the sole benefit of the applicant, the selection procedure in competition COM/A/17/96 (see order of the Court of First Instance of 21 October 2002 in Case T-97/01, not published in the ECR). The applicant then took a third oral test on 8 November 2002.
9 By letter of 15 November 2002, the Commission informed the applicant that he had passed that test and that his name had been placed on the list of suitable candidates from competition COM/A/17/96.
10 The applicant was then appointed an official as of 1 April 2003 and assigned to the Directorate General for Regional Policy, that is to say, the one for which he had worked since his recruitment as an official in Category B in 1986.
11 On 31 March 2003, the applicant was informed of the decision of ... the appointing authority to classify him in grade A 7, step 3, as of 1 April 2003 ...
12 In accordance with Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations, on 30 June 2003 the applicant lodged a complaint against the [classification] decision. In support of his complaint, he pleaded breach of Articles 31 and 45 of the Staff Regulations, of Article 233 EC, of the principle of equal treatment and of the amicable settlement reached between the parties in Case T-97/01. He argued that his success in the competition in question should be deemed to date from his first oral test, that is to say, from 15 December 1997, since the competition had been reopened for his benefit. Finally, he submitted that, in view of his relevant professional experience for the profile which it was fairly difficult to fit, he should have been classified in grade A 6 as of 1 January 2002, given that the first promotions to grade A 6 of successful candidates in internal competition COM/A/17/96 had already taken place on 1 January 2001 and most of them had attained that grade by 2003.
13 That complaint was rejected by a decision of the appointing authority of 24 November 2003 ... According to that decision, Article 31(2) of the Staff Regulations does not apply because it only concerns new officials. It cannot, therefore, be applied to the applicant as he was already an official in Category B. In any event, there was nothing exceptional on his file for the purposes of the five criteria used to classify all officials on entry into service, namely, university profile, the length and quality of professional experience, the relevance of professional experience to the post occupied and the special value of a professional profile on the employment market. The appointing authority took the view, rather, that the applicant's grade and step had been correctly calculated in accordance with Article 46 of the Staff Regulations.'
Procedure before the General Court and the judgment under appeal
Forms of order sought
set aside the judgment under appeal;
annul the classification decision and the decision on the complaint;
exercise its unlimited jurisdiction and award him the sum of EUR 538 121.79 by way of compensation for the financial loss resulting from the unlawful conduct of the Commission in adopting the classification decision, which, because of the reform of the Staff Regulations, will affect the appellant for the rest of his life;
award him EUR 50 000 by way of compensation for the length of taken by the Court of First Instance to deliver its judgment;
order the Commission to pay the costs incurred in the proceedings at first instance and the appeal.
Appeal
The first plea
Arguments of the parties
Findings of the Court
Admissibility
Merits
The second plea in law
Arguments of the parties
Findings of the Court
Admissibility
Merits
The claim for compensation for the undue length of the proceedings before the General Court
Arguments of the parties
Findings of the Court
Costs
On those grounds, the Court (First Chamber) hereby:
1. Dismisses the appeal;
2. Orders Mr Gogos and the Commission to bear their own costs.
[Signatures]
* Language of the case: Greek.