Back to EUR-Lex homepage

EUR-Lex Access to European Union law

Back to EUR-Lex homepage

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Use quotation marks to search for an "exact phrase". Append an asterisk (*) to a search term to find variations of it (transp*, 32019R*). Use a question mark (?) instead of a single character in your search term to find variations of it (ca?e finds case, cane, care).
Search tips
Need more search options? Use the Advanced search
You are here

Document 62016TN0677

Case T-677/16: Action brought on 22 September 2016 — Bowles v ECB

OJ C 419, 14.11.2016, p. 54–55 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

14.11.2016   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 419/54

Action brought on 22 September 2016 — Bowles v ECB

(Case T-677/16)

(2016/C 419/71)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Carlos Bowles (Frankfurt am Main, Germany) (represented by: L. Levi et M. Vandenbussche, lawyers)

Defendant: European Central Bank

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—

declare the application admissible and well founded;

accordingly:

—

annul the decision of the CSO, adopted on 29 February 2016 under the authority of the management board and notified to staff on 11 March 2016, to exclude the applicant from the ASI exercise for the year 2016;

—

annul the decision rejecting the special appeal dated 5 July 2016 and received on 13 July 2016;

—

order the payment of compensation for the non-material damage sustained by the applicant consisting in the loss of a chance of obtaining an ASI in 2016 evaluated at EUR 49 102;

—

order the payment of compensation for non-material damage assessed on an ex aequo et bono basis at EUR 15 000;

—

order the defendant to pay all the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law.

1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of non-discrimination, Articles 12 and 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights (‘the Charter’) and Article 51 of the conditions of employment of ECB staff (‘the conditions of employment’), of the right to career and promotion prospects as well as of the principle of legal certainty.

—

The applicant submits that the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (‘CST’) of 15 December 2015 in Case F-94/14, Bowles v ECB, has not yet been implemented by the ECB. In particular, Circular No 1/2011 on additional salary increases (‘ASI’), declared illegal by the CST, has been neither withdrawn or amended.

—

He also submits that, in the absence of legislative change, staff representatives enjoying a full or substantial work dispensation are once more in a position where they are deprived of the possibility of wage growth or career progression, unlike the rest of the ECB staff.

—

Next, the applicant submits that his exclusion from the comparative exercise following which the decision to grant the ASI is taken by the ECB affects the legality of that exercise and that the exclusion, which in practice is final, clearly places him at a disadvantage and discriminates against him because of his role as a full-time staff representative.

2.

Second plea in law, alleging the inability of the Chief Services Officer (‘CSO’) to decide not to follow the procedure set out in Circular No 1/2011 in respect of the applicant.

—

The applicant submits that, apart from the power to decide on who will receive the ASI, no other power relating to ASIs was delegated by the management board of the ECB to the CSO, including that to amend Circular No 1/2011 to exclude certain members of staff from its application.

—

Consequently, the CSO did not have the power to decide not to apply Circular No 1/2011 to the applicant, since that circular should have been applied to him if the CSO had acted according to the powers that had been delegated to it by the management board.

3.

Third plea in law, alleging lack of consultation of the Staff Committee, in breach of Article 27 of the Charter and Articles 48 and 49 of the conditions of employment

—

The applicant finally submits that, although the decision of the CSO was to be regarded as a decision amending Circular No 1/2011, the staff committee was not consulted beforehand on that decision. Since that consultation was required in particular before any changes to Circular No 1/2011, the ECB should therefore have consulted the Staff Committee in respect of that amendment.
Top