JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Second Chamber)

28 January 2003

Case T-138/01

F

v

Court of Auditors of the European Communities

‛Officials — Reassignment — Legitimate expectations — Action for annulment and compensation’

Full text in French   II-137

Application for:

first, annulment of the decision of the Court of Auditors of 4 December 2000 reassigning the applicant to the translation service and, secondly, compensation for the nonmaterial damage alleged by the applicant.

Held:

The decision of the Court of Auditors of 4 December 2000 reassigning the applicant to the translation service is annulled. The remainder of the application is dismissed. The Court of Auditors is ordered to pay the costs, including those relating to the interlocutory proceedings in Case T-138/01 R.

Summary

1. Officials — Organisation of departments — Assignment of staff — Compromise giving the official precise assurances that he will be assigned to a particular department — Reassignment in the interest of the service on the basis of circumstances already known at the time when the compromise is agreed — Breach of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations

   (Staff Regulations, Art. 7)

2. Officials — Appeals — Action for compensation introduced without a prior administrative procedure in accordance with the Staff Regulations — Inadmissibility

   (Staff Regulations, Arts 90 and 91)

3. Officials — Appeals — Claim for damages — Annulment of the contested unlawful measure — Adequate compensation for nonmaterial damage

   (Staff Regulations, Art. 91)

1.  The right to claim protection of legitimate expectations extends to any individual who is in a situation in which it appears that the Community administration has, by giving him precise assurances, led him to entertain reasonable expectations.

   Thus, where the administration agrees a compromise with an official, giving him precise assurances concerning his assignment to one of its departments, it undertakes to take all reasonable measures to enable the official concerned to remain in that post in so far as that is compatible with the interests of the service. Therefore, although the official cannot base legitimate expectations as to the permanence of his assignment on that compromise, since that would place unacceptable limits on the freedom of the institutions to organise their departments and to adapt them as their needs change, the administration breaches the official's legitimate expectations by reassigning him on the basis of matters or circumstances that were already known when the compromise was agreed and that could therefore have been taken into account when the decision concerning his assignment was taken, which, as long as its validity is not disputed, is presumed to have been taken in accordance with the interests of the service. It follows that the administration may deem it to be contrary to those interests for the official to remain in the post only on the basis of matters or circumstances which arose after that decision was taken.

   (see paras 40-47)

   See: 161/80 and 162/81 Carbognaniand Coda Zabetta v Commission [1981] ECR 543. para. 18; T-205/01 Ronsse v Commission [2002] ECRSC I-A-211 and II-1065, para. 54; T-102/95 Aubineau v Commission [1996] ECRSC I-A-357 and II-1053. paras 29 and 31

2.  It is only where there is a direct link between an action for annulment and a claim for compensation that the latter is admissible as ancillary to the action for annulment, without necessarily having to be preceded both by a request from the person concerned to the appointing authority for compensation for the damage allegedly suffered and by a complaint challenging the validity of the implied or express rejection of that request. However, where the damage alleged does not stem from an act whose annulment is sought, but from several wrongful acts or omissions alleged against the administration, it is imperative that the pre-litigation procedure should be initiated by a request that the appointing authority compensate for that damage and continued, where appropriate, by a complaint made against the decision to reject the request.

   (see para. 57)

   See: T-17/90, T-28/91 and T-17/92 Camara Alloisio and Others v Commission [1993] ECR II-841, para. 47; T-74/01 Ferrer de Moneada v Commission [2002] ECRSC I-A-87 and II-411. para. 69

3.  The annulment of the act of the administration contested by an official in itself constitutes appropriate and, in principle, sufficient reparation for any nonmaterial harm which the official may have suffered as a result of the act annulled.

   (see para. 69)

   See: C-343/87 Culin v Commission [1990] ECR I-225, paras 25-29; T-89/01 Willeme v Commission [2002] ECRSC I-A-153 and II-803, para. 97