JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (First Chamber)

2 July 1997

Case T-28/96

Doreen Chew

v

Commission of the European Communities

‛Officials — Representation — Staff Committee — Elections — List of staff entitled to vote’

Full text in French   II-497

Application for:

annulment of the result of the elections held to provide for representation of staff serving outside the Community, announced by the Electoral Committee on 13 February 1995, in so far as it named the regional representative elected by the local staff constituency for geographical area No 3, and an order requiring the Commission to pay one Belgian franc as compensation for the nonmaterial damage allegedly suffered by the applicant.

Decision:

Application dismissed.

Abstract of the Judgment

In December 1994 elections were held in the various Commission delegations to provide for the local and regional representation of staff serving outside the Community. Before those elections, the Electoral Committee in Brussels sent instructions to the various heads of delegation. According to one of those instructions, each voter had to sign a ‘list of voters’ on polling day by way of evidence that he had cast his vote.

The applicant, who is a member of the local staff of the Commission's delegation to Fiji, was a candidate in the elections held in geographical area No 3, which covers Australia, Fiji, New Caledonia, the Solomon Islands, Samoa, Tonga and Vanuatu.

During the elections a discrepancy arose in the ballot organised by the delegation to the Solomon Islands. Six ballot papers were returned, whereas the relevant list of voters contained only five signatures. At its meeting on 12 January 1995, the Electoral Committee noted that discrepancy and stated that the result of the elections in geographical area No 3 depended on whether or not the votes cast in the Solomon Islands delegation could be counted.

In reply to a fax sent by the Electoral Committee on 26 January 1995, seeking clarification of the discrepancy, the Head of the Delegation to the Solomon Islands confirmed by fax of 27 January 1995 that the member of staff whose signature was missing from the list of voters (Mr X) had in fact voted and the absence of his signature from the list was merely an oversight. Attached to the fax was a new copy of the list of voters, containing Mr X's signature.

On receiving the new list, the Electoral Committee took a decision at a meeting on 13 February 1995 to count the six votes from the delegation to the Solomon Islands, that is to say, one vote for the applicant and five for the other candidate (Mr Y).

It is common ground that if the six votes from the Solomon Islands delegation had not been counted, the applicant would have won the regional election organised in the local staff constituency for geographical area No 3.

Admissibility

It is not for this Court, in proceedings brought under Article 91 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communities, to make declarations of principle or to issue directions to the Community institutions. In the first place, the Community judicature manifestly has no jurisdiction to issue directions to Community institutions. Secondly, where a measure is annulled, the institution concerned is required by Article 176 of the EC Treaty to take the measures necessary to comply with the relevant judgment (paragraph 17).

See: T-94/92 X v Commission [1994] ECRSC II-481, para. 33; T-583/93 P v Commission [1995] ECRSC II-433, para. 17

Consequently, the claim that the Court of First Instance should declare that the applicant has won the regional election organised by the local staff constituency for geographical area No 3 must be declared inadmissible (paragraph 18).

As for the claim that the decision rejecting the complaint should be annulled, it is sufficient to point out that a decision rejecting a complaint does not as such constitute a measure against which an action lies. Accordingly, that claim is also inadmissible (paragraph 19).

See: T-4/93 André v Commission [1994] ECRSC II-471, para. 21

Substance

The application for annulment

In interpreting an electoral rule, the Court of First Instance must bear in mind the internal logic of the electoral system set up by the institution concerned under its power to adopt electoral rules. Accordingly, in inteipreting the wording of the rale at issue, regard must be had to that provision's role within the electoral system as a whole (paragraph 26).

See: T-534/93 Grynberg and Hall v Commission [1994] ECRSC II-595, paras 39 to 42

According to the wording of the rule at issue, the voters must sign the voters' list ‘on polling day’, the aim being to ensure that the ballot papers come from different voters who have genuinely and in person exercised their right to vote. However, although a signature on the voters' list is thus evidence that the right to vote has been so exercised, it does not in itself constitute exercise of that right, nor is it the only possible evidence thereof (paragraph 27).

In those circumstances, the Electoral Committee was fully entitled, after checking with the head of the delegation, to count all the votes returned in the ballot organised by the delegation to the Solomon Islands, and in so doing it wholly fulfilled its obligation to monitor the proper conduct of elections (paragraph 29).

The claim for compensation

A claim for compensation for nonmaterial damage must be rejected where it is closely linked with an application for annulment which has itself been dismissed (paragraph 33).

See: T-1/91 Della Pietra v Commission [1992] ECR II-2145, para. 34; T-562/93 Obst v Commission [1995] ECRSC II-737, para. 88

Operative part:

The application is dismissed.