JUDGMENT OF THE EUROPEAN UNION CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL

(Third Chamber)

25 June 2014

Beatriz Molina Solano

v

European Police Office (Europol)

‛Civil service — Europol staff — Europol Convention — Europol Staff Regulations — Decision 2009/371/JHA — Application of the CEOS to Europol staff — Non-renewal of a fixed-term contract as a member of the temporary staff — Refusal to grant a temporary staff contract for an indefinite period’

Application:

under Article 270 TFEU, in which Ms Molina Solano seeks annulment of the decision of 28 September 2012 by which the European Police Office (Europol) refused to renew for an indefinite period her fixed-term contract as a member of the temporary staff which expired on 31 December 2012.

Held:

The action is dismissed. Ms Molina Solano is to bear her own costs and is ordered to pay those incurred by the European Police Office.

Summary

1. Officials — Principles — Protection of legitimate expectations — Conditions — Precise assurances given by the administration

2. Officials — Members of the temporary staff — Recruitment — Renewal of a fixed-term contract — Administration’s discretion — Administration’s duty to have regard for the interests of staff — Taking into consideration of the interests of the staff member concerned — Judicial review — Limits

   (Conditions of Employment of Other Servants, Art. 88)

1.  The right to rely on the protection of legitimate expectations extends to any individual who is in a situation in which it is apparent that the administration has led him to entertain justified expectations by giving him precise assurances in the form of precise, unconditional and consistent information coming from authorised and reliable sources.

   (see para. 42)

   See:

   judgment in Mendes v Commission, F-125/11, EU:F:2013:35, para. 62

2.  The administration has a wide discretion with regard to the renewal of contracts and, in that context, review by the Courts must be limited to ascertaining whether, regard being had to the various considerations which have influenced the administration in making its assessment, it remained within unimpeachable limits and has not used its power in a manifestly incorrect way.

   Furthermore, the duty to have regard to the interests of staff means, in particular, that when the competent authority takes a decision concerning the situation of a staff member, even in the exercise of a broad discretion, it should take into consideration all the factors which may affect its decision; when doing so it must take into account not only the interests of the service but also those of the official or other staff member concerned. Having regard specifically to the institutions’ wide discretion to assess the interests of the service, the review by the Union judicature must be limited to the question whether the competent authority remained within reasonable limits and did not use its discretion in a manifestly incorrect way.

   (see paras 54, 55)

   See:

   judgment in BUPA and Others v Commission, T-289/03, EU:T:2008:29, para. 221

   judgment in Gheysens v Council, F-8/10, EU:F:2010:151, para. 75

JUDGMENT OF THE EUROPEAN UNION CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL

(Third Chamber)

25 June 2014

Beatriz Molina Solano

v

European Police Office (Europol)

‛Civil service — Europol staff — Europol Convention — Europol Staff Regulations — Decision 2009/371/JHA — Application of the CEOS to Europol staff — Non-renewal of a fixed-term contract as a member of the temporary staff — Refusal to grant a temporary staff contract for an indefinite period’

Application

:

under Article 270 TFEU, in which Ms Molina Solano seeks annulment of the decision of 28 September 2012 by which the European Police Office (Europol) refused to renew for an indefinite period her fixed-term contract as a member of the temporary staff which expired on 31 December 2012.

Held

:

The action is dismissed. Ms Molina Solano is to bear her own costs and is ordered to pay those incurred by the European Police Office.

Summary

1. Officials — Principles — Protection of legitimate expectations — Conditions — Precise assurances given by the administration

2. Officials — Members of the temporary staff — Recruitment — Renewal of a fixed-term contract — Administration’s discretion — Administration’s duty to have regard for the interests of staff — Taking into consideration of the interests of the staff member concerned — Judicial review — Limits

   (Conditions of Employment of Other Servants, Art. 88)

1.  The right to rely on the protection of legitimate expectations extends to any individual who is in a situation in which it is apparent that the administration has led him to entertain justified expectations by giving him precise assurances in the form of precise, unconditional and consistent information coming from authorised and reliable sources.

   (see para. 42)

   See:

   judgment in Mendes v Commission, F-125/11, EU:F:2013:35, para. 62

2.  The administration has a wide discretion with regard to the renewal of contracts and, in that context, review by the Courts must be limited to ascertaining whether, regard being had to the various considerations which have influenced the administration in making its assessment, it remained within unimpeachable limits and has not used its power in a manifestly incorrect way.

   Furthermore, the duty to have regard to the interests of staff means, in particular, that when the competent authority takes a decision concerning the situation of a staff member, even in the exercise of a broad discretion, it should take into consideration all the factors which may affect its decision; when doing so it must take into account not only the interests of the service but also those of the official or other staff member concerned. Having regard specifically to the institutions’ wide discretion to assess the interests of the service, the review by the Union judicature must be limited to the question whether the competent authority remained within reasonable limits and did not use its discretion in a manifestly incorrect way.

   (see paras 54, 55)

   See:

   judgment in BUPA and Others v Commission, T-289/03, EU:T:2008:29, para. 221

   judgment in Gheysens v Council, F-8/10, EU:F:2010:151, para. 75