EUR-Lex Access to European Union law

Back to EUR-Lex homepage

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Document 62012CN0063

Case C-63/12: Action brought on 7 February 2012 — European Commission v Council of the European Union

OJ C 118, 21.4.2012, p. 14–14 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

21.4.2012   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 118/14


Action brought on 7 February 2012 — European Commission v Council of the European Union

(Case C-63/12)

2012/C 118/22

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall, J.-P. Keppenne and D. Martin, agents)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

annul Council Decision 2011/866/EU of 19 December 2011 concerning the Commission’s proposal for a Council Regulation adjusting with effect from 1 July 2011 the remuneration and pensions of the officials and other servants of the European Union and the correction coefficients applied thereto; (1)

order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Commission raises two grounds of complaint in relation to Annex XI to the Staff Regulations.

The first ground of complaint concerns the Council’s refusal to adopt the adjustment of the remuneration and pensions of officials and other servants, as proposed by the Commission on 24 November 2011, thereby infringing the method governing that adjustment for a period of eight years ending on 31 December 2012. By that ground of complaint, the Commission’s primary plea in law claims that the Council has misused its power and exceeded the limits of that power, and its alternative plea in law is that the Council has infringed the conditions for the application of Article 10 of Annex XI to the Staff Regulations. The primary plea in law concerns the fact that the Council has in fact itself applied Article 10, but in breach of the required institutional conditions; the Council has thereby infringed, first, Article 65 of the Staff Regulations and, second, Articles 3 and 10 of Annex XI. By the alternative plea in law, the Commission argues that, in any event, the substantive conditions for the application of Article 10 were not met in 2011, as is clear moreover from the two economic reports which the Commission submitted to the Council at the latter’s request. The Commission also considers that Council failed properly to state reasons for its decision.

The second ground of complaint concerns the Council’s refusal to adjust the correction coefficients which must be applied to the remuneration and pensions, according to the various places of employment or residence of the persons concerned. The first plea in law within that complaint is that that refusal is contrary to Article 64 of the Staff Regulations and Articles 1 and 3 of Annex XI to the Staff Regulations. The Commission’s second plea in law is that that refusal lacks any statement of reasons, contrary to the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU.


(1)  OJ 2011 L 341, p.54


Top