JUDGMENT OF THE GENERAL COURT (Appeal Chamber)

10 October 2014

Case T‑444/13 P

European Medicines Agency (EMA)

v

BU

(Appeal — Civil service — Temporary staff — Fixed-term contract — Non-renewal decision — Jurisdiction of the Civil Service Tribunal — Article 8, first paragraph, of the CEOS — Duty to have regard for the welfare of staff)

Appeal:      against the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 26 June 2013, BU v EMA (F‑135/11, F‑51/12 and F‑110/12, ECR-SC, EU:F:2013:93) seeking to have that judgment set aside.

Held:      The appeal is dismissed. The European Medicines Agency (EMA) is ordered to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by BU in the present proceedings.

Summary

Officials — Members of the temporary staff — Recruitment — Renewal of a fixed-term contract — Administration’s discretion — Judicial review — Limits

(Conditions of Employment of Other Servants, Art. 8)

The possibility of renewing the contract of a member of the temporary staff is merely an option left to the discretion of the competent authority, since the institutions have a broad discretion to organise their departments to suit the tasks entrusted to them and to assign the staff available to them in the light of such tasks, on condition that the staff are assigned in the interest of the service.

When the competent authority takes a decision concerning the situation of a staff member, it must take into consideration all the factors which may affect its decision, that is to say, not just the interests of the service, but also, in particular, those of the staff member concerned. That is a consequence of the administration’s duty to have regard for the welfare of its staff, which reflects the balance of the reciprocal rights and obligations established by the Staff Regulations and, by analogy, the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants, in the relationship between the official authority and its staff.

In any event, in view of the broad discretion conferred on the institutions in that context, review by the courts is limited to ascertaining that there has been no manifest error or misuse of powers.

(see para. 28)

See:

judgment of 29 June 1994 in Klinke v Court of Justice, C‑298/93 P, ECR, EU:C:1994:273, para. 38

judgments of 18 April 1996 in Kyrpitsis v ESC, T‑13/95, ECR-SC, EU:T:1996:50, para. 52; 15 October 2008 in Potamianos v Commission, T‑160/04, ECR-SC, EU:T:2008:438, para. 30; and 8 September 2009 in ETF v Landgren, T‑404/06 P, ECR, EU:T:2009:313, para. 162 and the case-law cited therein