Case C‑14/19 P

European Union Satellite Centre (SatCen)

against

KF

 Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber), 25 June 2020

(Appeal — Staff of the European Union Satellite Centre (SatCen) — Member of SatCen’s contract staff — Complaints of psychological harassment — Administrative investigation — Request for assistance — Suspension of the staff member — Disciplinary proceedings — Removal of the staff member — SatCen’s Appeals Board — Conferral of exclusive jurisdiction in relation to SatCen staff disputes — Action for annulment — First and fifth paragraphs of Article 263 TFEU — Actions for damages — Article 268 TFEU — Jurisdiction of the EU judicature — Admissibility — Acts open to challenge — Contractual nature of the dispute — Articles 272 and 274 TFEU — Effective judicial protection — Final sentence of the second subparagraph of Article 24(1) TEU — First paragraph of Article 275 TFEU — Principle of equal treatment — General Court’s obligation to state reasons — Distortion of the facts and evidence — Rights of the defence — Principle of sound administration)

1.        EU agencies — European Union Satellite Centre (SatCen) — Staff Regulations — Appeals procedure — Whether it is possible for the Council to exclude the jurisdiction of both the national courts and the General Court in disputes between SatCen and its staff members — No such possibility

(Arts 2 and 19(1), first subpara., TEU; Art. 263, fifth para., TFEU; Council Decision 2009/747/CFSP, Art. 28(6), and Annex X, point 1)

(see paragraphs 59, 62-65)

2.        Actions for annulment — Actionable measures — Definition — Acts producing binding legal effects as regards third parties — Decisions, taken by the European Union Satellite Centre, to suspend, to initiate disciplinary proceedings against, and to remove a member of its contract staff — Included

(Arts 263 and 270 TFEU; Council Decisions 2009/747/CFSP and 2014/401/CFSP)

(see paragraphs 69-77)

3.        Actions for annulment — Action relating in actual fact to a contractual dispute — Annulment of a measure which is part of a purely contractual context — EU judicature’s lack of jurisdiction under Article 263 TFUE — Inadmissibility — Exception — Decisions adopted by the European Union Satellite Centre having the effect of terminating the contract of one of its staff members — Exclusive jurisdiction of an appeals board — Need to ensure effective judicial review by an EU or national court

(Arts 263, 268, 272 and 274 TFEU; Council Decision 2009/747/CFSP, Art. 28(6))

(see paragraphs 78-86)

4.        Common foreign and security policy — Jurisdiction of the EU judicature — Acts adopted by the European Union Satellite Centre having the effect of terminating the contract of one of its staff members — Included

(Art. 24(1), second subpara., TEU; Art. 275, first para., TFEU; Council Decision 2009/747/CFSP, Art. 28(6) and Annex X, point 1)

(see paragraphs 92-95)

5.        Officials — Principles — Rights of defence — Obligation to hear the person concerned before adopting a measure adversely affecting him or her — Scope — Infringement — Consequences

(Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 41(2); Council Decision 2009/747/CFSP, Annex IX, Arts 1(1) and 2)

(see paragraphs 117-121, 123)

Résumé

In the judgment in SatCen v KF (C‑14/19 P), delivered on 25 June 2020, the Court confirmed on appeal the judgment of the General Court, (1) which had, first, annulled two decisions of the Director of the European Union Satellite Centre (SatCen), (2)concerning the suspension and removal, respectively, of KF, a member of the contract staff, and the decision of SatCen’s Appeals Board in the same dispute (‘the contested decisions’), and, second, ordered SatCen to pay KF the sum of EUR 10 000 by way of compensation for the non-material damage she had suffered.

KF was recruited by SatCen on 1 August 2009 as Head of the Administration Division. When shortcomings as regards human relations within that division were identified, and following a complaint about the behaviour and conduct of KF, an administrative investigation was launched concerning her. Following that investigation, the Deputy Director of SatCen concluded that KF’s alleged behaviour was confirmed and constituted psychological harassment. As a result, the Director of SatCen decided to initiate disciplinary proceedings against KF and to suspend her from her duties. On the conclusion of those proceedings, the Director of SatCen removed KF from her post for disciplinary reasons. The administrative complaint KF made to the Director of SatCen against that decision was rejected as was the appeal she brought before SatCen’s Appeals Board, whose decisions, which are binding on both parties, may not be appealed against (3).

KF brought an action before the General Court seeking annulment of the contested decisions, inter alia, and an order for SatSen to pay to her her unpaid salary, plus EUR 500 000 in respect of the non-material harm she had suffered. In support of her action, she put forward pleas in law alleging breach of the principle of sound administration, the principle of impartiality and the principle of respect for the rights of the defence, inter alia. In addition, she raised, on the basis of Article 277 TFEU, a plea of illegality against Article 28(6) of the SatCen Staff Regulations, on the ground that that provision makes the Appeals Board the only body with jurisdiction to review the legality of the decisions of the Director of SatCen, thus exempting those decisions from any judicial review. The General Court having upheld the plea of illegality and upheld in part the action, SatCen brought an appeal against that judgment. It raised four grounds in support of that appeal, alleging, respectively, that the General Court did not have jurisdiction to hear the action at first instance, that that action was inadmissible, distortion of facts, and failure to have due regard for the principle of sound administration and the principle of respect for the rights of the defence.

Examining, in the first place, the grounds alleging that the General Court did not have jurisdiction to hear the action at first instance and that that action was inadmissible, the Court ruled, first, that the fifth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU does not allow an EU institution to introduce specific conditions and arrangements that shield disputes involving the interpretation or application of EU law from the jurisdiction of both the courts of the Member States and the EU courts. Yet that is the effect of the provision granting the Appeals Board exclusive jurisdiction to interpret and apply, without the possibility of appeal, the SatCen Staff Regulations, which are contained in a decision adopted by the Council and therefore constitute provisions of EU law. Accordingly, granting the Appeals Board that exclusive jurisdiction is contrary to the Court’s case-law (4) according to which Article 19 TEU entrusts the responsibility for ensuring the full application of EU law to national courts and tribunals and to the Court.

Second, the Court ruled that the contested decisions satisfied the conditions necessary to be considered acts open to review for the purposes of Article 263 TFEU. They definitively determine the position of SatCen and are intended to have binding legal effects capable of affecting the interests of KF, to whom they are addressed and who they adversely affect, by bringing about a distinct change in her legal position. Furthermore, the Court stated that the employment relationship between KF and SatCen, to which Article 270 TFEU does not apply, does not provide grounds for concluding that the dispute is not between SatCen and a ‘third party’ within the meaning of the first paragraph of Article 263 TFEU. That employment relationship does not therefore exclude the present dispute from the scope of that provision.

Third, the Court noted that the preservation of the coherence of the judicial system requires, in principle, that the EU judicature relinquish the jurisdiction conferred on it by Article 263 TFEU where the applicant’s legal situation is covered by the contractual relationships subject to the jurisdiction conferred by Articles 272 or 274 TFEU. However, in a context where the decisions adopted by SatCen are exempt from any form of judicial review, under Article 272 or Article 274 TFEU, by the national courts and by the EU courts, declining jurisdiction on the part of the EU courts is not justified by the objective of preserving the coherence of the judicial system. In those circumstances, in order to ensure effective judicial review, it is for the EU courts to exercise the jurisdiction conferred on them by Article 263 TFEU.

Fourth, the Court stated that, although the initial link between SatCen and the Western European Union, which is an international inter-governmental organisation, had meant, in the past, that the situation of SatCen staff could not be treated in the same way as that of servants of the European Union, this is no longer the case since the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty on 1 December 2009, disputes between SatCen and its staff members having been considered, since that date, comparable to disputes between EU servants and their employer. Similarly, the exception to the jurisdiction of the EU courts in connection with Treaty provisions relating to the common foreign and security policy (5) does not exclude the jurisdiction of the EU courts to review acts of staff management, such as the contested decisions.

In the second place, examining the ground based on failure to have due regard for the principle of sound administration and the principle of respect for the rights of the defence, the Court stated that it is clear both from the principle of sound administration, which includes the right to be heard, and the SatCen Staff Regulations (6) that the Deputy Director of SatCen, before reaching conclusions following the internal investigation, and, in any event, the Director of SatCen, before initiating disciplinary proceedings against KF, were required to respect her right to be heard. They should, to that end, have communicated to KF the facts concerning her and granted her a reasonable period of time to prepare her observations. That information should have been disclosed, at the very least, by means of a summary of the statements used, prepared in compliance with any legitimate expectations as regards confidentiality of the witnesses consulted.

1      Judgment of the General Court of 25 October 2018, KF v SatCen (T‑286/15, EU:T:2018:718).

2      On 27 June 1991, the Council of Ministers of the Western European Union (WEU) took a decision to set up a satellite data operating centre. On 10 November 2000, the Council of the European Union decided to create, in the form of an agency of the European Union, a satellite centre incorporating the relevant features of the centre set up within the WEU. That centre was established by Council Joint Action 2001/555/CFSP of 20 July 2001 on the establishment of a European Union Satellite Centre (OJ 2001 L 200, p. 5). Subsequently, the Council adopted Decision 2014/401/CFSP of 26 June 2014 on SatCen and repealing Joint Action 2001/555/CFSP on the establishment of a European Union Satellite Centre (OJ 2014 L 188, p. 73), which henceforth constitutes the legal framework applicable to SatCen.

3      In accordance with Article 28(6) of Council Decision 2009/747/CFSP of 14 September 2009 concerning the Staff Regulations of the European Union Satellite Centre (OJ 2009 L 276, p. 1) (‘the SatCen Staff Regulations’). The composition, operation and specific procedures of that body are given in Annex X to Decision 2009/747.

4      Opinion 1/17 of 30 April 2019, EU:C:2019:341, point 111, and judgment of 19 November 2019, A. K. and Others (Independence of the Disciplinary Chamber of the Supreme Court), C‑585/18, C‑624/18 and C‑625/18, EU:C:2019:982, paragraph 167.

5      The last sentence of the second subparagraph of Article 24(1) TEU and the first paragraph of Article 275 TFEU.

6      Articles 1(1) and 2 of Annex IX to the SatCen Staff Regulations.