Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Fundamental rights in European Union civil service law

  • Article
  • Published:
ERA Forum Aims and scope

Abstract

Sometimes neglected by lawyers, European Union civil service law represents an area where fundamental rights issues are particularly likely to arise: the official confronts the administration which he or she works for, and which may adopt measures specifically addressed to him or her. The role of judicial review is then of the utmost importance. However, the relationship European Union personnel have with the administration is a public law one, and this is the case mainly because the European Union administration has the responsibility of ensuring the achievement of the tasks conferred on the European Union institutions by the Treaties. The Staff Regulations, which are the main source of European Union civil service law, reflect the nature of this relationship in their provisions and procedures. It is against this backdrop that one has to assess the ways in which the European Union Charter of Fundamental Rights can be of relevance in European Union civil service law.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Regulation 31 (EEC) and (Euratom) laying down the Staff Regulations of Officials and the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Community and the European Atomic Energy Community, OJ 45, 14.06.1962, p. 1385 as further amended, lastly, by Regulation (EU, Euratom) 1023/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2013 (OJ L 287, 29.10.2013, p. 15).

  2. Case F-153/12 Forget v Commission, ECLI:EU:F:2014:61, paragraph 27 and ff. An apparently similar issue was raised in Case F-79/14 EG v Parliament, ECLI:EU:F:2015:63, paragraph 56 and ff. but no decision was made on it as the Civil Service Tribunal held that it was inadmissible (“irrecevable”) according to Article 50(1)(e) of the Civil Service Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure for lack of precision.

  3. Case F-86/09 W v Commission, ECLI:EU:F:2010:125.

  4. Case F-127/11 De Mendoza v Commission, ECLI:EU:F:2014:14, paragraph 101.

  5. Case F-10/12 Infante Garcia-Consuegra v Commission, ECLI:EU:F:2013:38, paragraphs 22 and 52.

  6. 1 December 2009.

  7. Bradley [1], p. 563.

  8. O’Leary [8], p. 775.

  9. Case C-443/07 P Centeno Mediavilla v Commission, ECLI:EU:C:2008:767, paragraph 60 and the case law quoted therein.

  10. Joined Cases T-34 and T-163/96 Connolly v Commission, ECLI:EU:T:1999:102, paragraphs 127–128.

  11. Case F-73/13 AX v ECB, ECLI:EU:F:2015:9, paragraph 147 and ff.

  12. On the distinction from the indirect administration see Opinion of AG Trstenjak in Case C-19/05 Commission v Denmark, ECLI:EU:C:2007:418, paragraph 61, footnote 26.

  13. Referred to in the Staff Regulations as “General Implementing Provisions”. (See—just to mention the Staff Regulations and not its Annexes—Articles 32(2), 42a(1), 110(2) and 110(4) of the Staff Regulations. General Implementing Provisions cannot alter the meaning of legal concepts used in the Staff Regulations: Case T-44/89 Gouvras-Laycock v Commission, ECLI:EU:T:1990:33, paragraph 25.)

  14. Case T-17/08 P Andreasen v Commission, ECLI:EU:T:2010:374, paragraph 146.

  15. Case T-118/99 Bonaiti Brighina v Commission, ECLI:EU:T:2001:44, paragraph 47.

  16. Case T-325/09 P Adjemian v Commission, ECLI:EU:T:2011:506, paragraph 56.

  17. Case F-65/07 Aayhan v Parliament, ECLI:EU:T:2009:397, paragraph 118; see on this Petrlík [9], p. 807.

  18. Ibidem, paragraph 121.

  19. Kraemer [4], p. 1911.

  20. Case C-579/12 RX-II Commission v Strack, ECLI:EU:C:2013:570, on which see below, at Sect. 3.2.1.

  21. Case T-49/08 P Michail v Commission, ECLI:EU:T:2009:456, paragraph 73 and case law quoted therein.

  22. Case T-110/89 Pincherle v Commission, ECLI:EU:T:1991:44, paragraph 30 (emphasis added).

  23. Case C-417/14 RX-II Missir v Commission, ECLI:EU:C:2015:588, paragraph 30; Cases T-104/14 P Commission v Verile and Giergij, ECLI:EU:T:2015:776, paragraphs 80 and 81; T-131/14 P Teughels v Commission, ECLI:EU:T:2015:778, paragraphs 77 and 78; T-103/13 P Commission v Cocchi and Falcione, ECLI:EU:T:2015:777, paragraphs 70 and 71.

  24. Gattinara [2], p. 686 f.

  25. Lenaerts/De Smijter [6], p. 278.

  26. Mengozzi [7], p. 492.

  27. Joined Cases F-69/07 and F-60/08 O v Commission, ECLI:EU:F:2009:128, paragraphs 103–133.

  28. In the sense that the official or agent had to be—in these cases—also a migrant worker within the meaning of what is now Article 45 TFEU.

  29. Case F-86/09 W v Commission, quoted above, paragraph 43; the issue at stake in this case was the consistency with the principle of non-discrimination of the Staff Regulations provisions applicable to the entitlement to the household allowance claimed by a homosexual couple.

  30. Case F-116/07 Tomas v Parliament, ECLI:EU:F:2010:77, paragraph 9, partially annulled on appeal in Case T-317/10 P.

  31. Case T-213/11 P (I) Collège des représentants du personnel de la Banque européenne d’investissement and ors. v Bömcke, ECLI:EU:T:2011:397, paragraphs 19–22.

  32. Case T-476/11 P Commission v Moschonaki, ECLI:EU:T:2013:557, paragraph 72.

  33. Case C-566/10 P Italy v Commission, ECLI:EU:C:2012:752.

  34. On access to documents, see Joined Cases T-197/11 P and T-198/11 P Commission v Strack and Strack v Commission, ECLI:EU:T:2012:690, paragraphs 53 and 54; on the right of petition see Case C-261/13 P Schönberger v Parliament, ECLI:EU:C:2014:2423; as for access to documents, this rule has an exception for candidates to a competition: see Case Case T-374/07 Pachtitis v Commission, ECLI:EU:T:2012:188, paragraph 13; Joined Cases T-515/14 P and T-516/14 P Alexandrou v Commission, ECLI:EU:T:2015:844, paragraphs 60–63.

  35. Case Case F-46/09 V v Parliament, ECLI:EU:F:2011:101, paragraph 74.

  36. OJ C 303, 14.12.2007, p. 17.

  37. Case F-84/12 CN v Council, ECLI:EU:F:2013:128, paragraph 50.

  38. Case T-491/08 P Bui Van v Commission, ECLI:EU:T:2010:191, paragraph 7.

  39. Case F-83/05 Ezerniece Liljeberg v Commission, ECLI:EU:F:2010:158, paragraph 106.

  40. See for this difference Order in Case F-16/12 R Kimman v Commission, ECLI:EU:F:2012:52, paragraph 20.

  41. Case F-8/13 CP v Parliament, ECLI:EU:F:2014:44 paragraphs 79–83.

  42. Ibidem, paragraphs 23–26.

  43. Bui Van, quoted above, paragraph 24.

  44. Case F-78/13 De Loecker v EEAS, ECLI:EU:F:2014:246, paragraphs 34–37.

  45. Case F-55/10 AS v Commission, ECLI:EU:F:2011:94, paragraph 40, not annulled on this point by the General Court in Case T-476/11 P. This holds true, for instance, in case of the transfer of medical data from an institution to another for the purpose of recruitment: Case F-46/09 V v Parliament, quoted above, paragraph 123.

  46. Joined Cases F-7/11 and F-60/11 AX v ECB, ECLI:EU:F:2012:195, paragraph 100.

  47. “Neutralisation” is the procedure according to which the Selection Board can annul the questions in case they are ambiguous: see Case F-2/07 Matos Martins v Commission, ECLI:EU:F:2010:22.

  48. Case F-116/11 Vacca v Commission, ECLI:EU:F:2013:92, paragraphs 52–64.

  49. Case F-46/11 Tzirani v Commission, ECLI:EU:F:2013:115, paragraph 163.

  50. Case F-14/10 Marcuccio v Commission, ECLI:EU:F:2011:99, paragraph 38 and the case law of the Court quoted therein, upheld on appeal in Case T-491/11 P.

  51. Case F-79/09 AE v Commission, ECLI:EU:F:2010:99, paragraph 99 ff.

  52. Case F-53/09 J v Commission, ECLI:EU:F:2011:52, paragraph 131.

  53. Case C-272/12 P Commission v Ireland and ors., ECLI:EU:C:2013:812, paragraph 28.

  54. Case C-197/09 RX II X v EMEA, ECLI:EU:C:2009:804, paragraphs 41 and 56 and 57.

  55. Case F-81/10 Coedo Suárez v Council, ECLI:EU:F:2011:102, paragraph 43 and case law quoted therein.

  56. Case T-261/09 P Commission v Violetti, ECLI:EU:T:2010:215, paragraphs 50 and 51.

  57. See above, at II, point 2.

  58. See above, at II, point 3.

  59. Case F-26/12 Cerafogli v BCE, ECLI:EU:F:2014:218.

  60. Case T-787/14 P ECB v Cerafogli, pending.

  61. Case C-334/12 RX-II Arango Jaramillo and ors. v European Investment Bank, ECLI:EU:C:2013:134, paragraphs 41 to 43; Case F-95/09 Skareby v Commission, ECLI:EU:F:2011:9, paragraphs 41 to 45.

  62. Case C-334/12 RX-II Arango Jaramillo and ors., quoted above, paragraph 33 f.

  63. Case T-107/11 P ETF, supported by the Commission and 8 Agencies v Schuerings, ECLI:EU:T:2013:624, paragraphs 99–100; Case T-108/11 P ETF supported by the Commission and 6 Agencies v Michel, ECLI:EU:T:2013:625, paragraphs 100–101.

  64. Case F-50/09 Missir v Comission, ECLI:EU:F:2011:55, paragraph 126.

  65. Case C-176/12 Association de médiation sociale, ECLI:EU:C:2014:2, paragraph 49.

  66. In this case it was Directive 2002/14/EC establishing a general framework for informing and consulting employees in the European Community (OJ L 80, 23.3.2002, p. 29), mentioned in the explanations on Article 27 of the Charter.

  67. Case F-120/07 Strack v Commission, ECLI:EU:F:2011:22.

  68. Ibidem, paragraph 55.

  69. OJ L 299, 18.11.2003, p. 9.

  70. Case F-120/07, quoted above, paragraph 57.

  71. Joined Cases C-350/06 and C-520/06 Schultz-Hoff and ors., ECLI:EU:C:2009:18, paragraphs 45, 50 and 51.

  72. Case F-120/07, quoted above, paragraph 64.

  73. Case F-27/10 Begue v Commission, ECLI:EU:F:2011:20, paragraph 55.

  74. Ibidem, last sentence.

  75. Case T-268/11 P Commission v Strack, ECLI:EU:T:2012:588, paragraphs 51–53.

  76. Ibidem, paragraphs 51–54.

  77. Ibidem, paragraphs 64–67.

  78. Ibidem, paragraphs 61 f.

  79. Case C-579/12 RX-II, quoted above, paragraphs 26 and 27.

  80. Quoted above.

  81. Case C-579/12 RX-II, quoted above, paragraph 32.

  82. Ibidem, paragraph 39.

  83. Ibidem, paragraphs 52 to 60.

  84. Ibidem, paragraph 47.

  85. Ibidem, paragraph 68.

  86. View of AG Kokott, Case C-579/12 RX-II Commission v Strack, ECLI:EU:C:2013:573, paragraph 8.

  87. Gattinara [3], p. 576.

  88. View of AG Kokott, Case C-579/12 RX-II, quoted above, paragraph 35.

  89. Order in Case T-22/14 Bergallou v Parliament and Council, ECLI:EU:T:2014:954, paragraph 33; Case F-124/14 Petsch v Commission, ECLI:EU:F:2015:69, paragraph 44.

  90. Case F-157/12 BN v Parliament, ECLI:EU:F:2014:164, paragraph 104 f.

  91. Case F-50/09 Missir, quoted above, paragraph 130.

  92. Case F-157/12, quoted above, paragraph 109.

  93. Ibidem, paragraph 117.

  94. Lenaerts/Foubert [5], p. 293.

References

  1. Bradley, K.: The application of the Charter of Fundamental Rights in EU staff law. ERA Forum 15, 561–574 (2014)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Gattinara, G.: Le recours en indemnité dans le contentieux de la fonction publique européenne. Rev. Droit Union Eur. 4, 679–717 (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  3. Gattinara, G., Pappalardo, F.: L’arrêt Strack de la Cour de justice et les contours du réexamen. Rev. Aff. Eur. 3, 571–580 (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  4. Kraemer, H.: The European Union Civil Service Tribunal: a new Community Court examined after four years of operation. Common Mark. Law Rev. 46, 1873–1913 (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  5. Lenaerts, K., Foubert, P.: Social rights in the case-law of the European Court of Justice. Leg. Issues Eur. Integr. 28, 267–296 (2001)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Lenaerts, K., De Smijter, E.: A “bill of rights” for the European Union. Common Mark. Law Rev. 38, 273–300 (2001)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Mengozzi, P.: La giurisprudenza dell’Unione ed il rilievo attribuito alla Carta dei diritti fondamentali prima e dopo l’entrata in vigore del Trattato di Lisbona. In: Scritti in Onore di Giuseppe Tesauro, pp. 487–501. Editoriale Scientifica, Napoli (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  8. O’Leary, S.: Applying principles of EU social and employment law in EU staff cases. Eur. Law Rev. 36, 769–797 (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  9. Petrlík, D.: Invocabilité variable des directives dans le domaine de la fonction publique de l’Union européenne. Rev. Aff. Eur. 20, 803–811 (2013)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. European Commission, Rue de la Loi 200, 1049, Brussels, Belgium

    Giacomo Gattinara

Authors
  1. Giacomo Gattinara
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Giacomo Gattinara.

Additional information

Giacomo Gattinara, Ph.D. (La Sapienza, Rome); LL Ms (King’s College, London and College of Europe, Bruges); member of the Legal Service of the European Commission. The views and opinions expressed are strictly personal to the author. This paper builds upon a lecture given at the Academy of European Law of Trier on 9 November 2015. The author wishes to thank his colleagues Julian Currall and Denis Martin for their helpful comments on an earlier draft. Possible mistakes or inaccuracies are the sole responsibility of the author.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Gattinara, G. Fundamental rights in European Union civil service law. ERA Forum 16, 529–545 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12027-015-0408-x

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12027-015-0408-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation