JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Single Judge)

6 February 2003

Case T-7/01

Norman Pyres

v

Commission of the European Communities

‛Member of the temporary staff — Extension of contract — Term’

Full text in English   II-239

Application for:

annulment of the Commission's decision to extend the applicant's temporary staff contract for a term limited to six months.

Held:

The application is dismissed. The parties are to bear their own costs.

Summary

1. Officials — Temporary staff — Recruitment — Renewal of a fixed-term contract for a term less than the maximum allowed by the contract — Obligation to state reasons — None

   (Conditions of Employment of Other Servants, Arts 8 and 47(1))

2. Officials — Temporary staff — Recruitment — Renewal of a fixed-term contract — Discretion of the appointing authority — Administration's duty to have regard for welfare of staff — Account to be taken of the interests of the employee concerned — Judicial review — Limits

   (Staff Regulations, Art. 7; Conditions of Employment of Other Servants, Art. 10)

3. Officials — Decision affecting the administrative status of an official — Account to be taken of information not contained in his personal file — Not permissible — Limits

   (Staff Regulations, Art. 26)

4. Officials — Actions — Pleas in law — Misuse of power — Concept

1.  According to Article 47(1) (a) and (b) of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants the duration of the employment relationship between an institution and a member of the temporary staff engaged for a fixed period is governed, within the limits laid down by Article 8 of those Conditions of Employment, by the conditions set out in the contract concluded between the parties. Where a fixed-term employment contract does not entitle the member of the temporary staff to a renewal of that contract, the appointing authority is not required, having regard to the very wide discretion it enjoys, to state reasons for a measure by which it decides, in compliance with the period of notice specified in the contract and in Article 47(1) (b) of the Conditions of Employment, and also, where appropriate, in the internal rules of the institution in question, not to renew that contract when it expires, or to renew it only for a term less than the maximum allowed under the contract.

   (see paras 38-40)

   See: T-330/00 and T-114/01 Cocchi and Hainz v Commission [2002] ECRSC I-A-193 and II-987, para. 83

2.  The renewal of the fixed-term contract of a member of the temporary staff falls within the scope of a wide discretion of the competent authority, so that review by the Community judicature must be confined to ascertaining that there was no manifest error or misuse of powers.

   As regards that authority's evaluation of the interests of the service, which, in accordance with the administration's duty to have regard for the welfare of staff, also requires account to be taken of the interests of the official concerned, review by the Community judicature must be confined to the question whether the authority remained within reasonable limits and did not use its discretion in a manifestly wrong way.

   (see paras 50-51)

   See: 25/80 De Briey v Commission [1981] ECR 637, para. 7; C-298/93 P Klinke v Court of Justice [1994] ECR I-3009, para. 38; T-45/90 Speybrouck v Parliament [1992] ECR II-33, paras. 97 and 98; T-51/91 Hoyer v Commission [1994] ECRSC I-A-103 and II-341, para. 27; T-52/91 Smets v Commission [1994] ECRSC I-A-107 and II-353, para. 24; T-13/95 Kyrpitsis v ESC [1996] ECRSC I-A-167 and II-503, para. 52; T-123/95 B v Parliament [1997] ECRSC I-A-245 and II-697, para. 70; T-79/98 Carrasco Benitez v EMEA [1999] ECRSC I-A-29 and II-127. para. 55; T-223/99 Dejaiffe v OUIM [2000] ECRSC I-A-277 and II-1267, para. 53

3.  Article 26 of the Staff Regulations, which provides that an official' s personal file is to contain all documents relating to his administrative status and all reports relating to his ability, efficiency and conduct, together with any comments by the official on such documents, is intended to guarantee an official's right to a fair hearing by ensuring that decisions taken by the appointing authority affecting his administrative status and his career are not based on matters concerning his conduct which are not included in his personal file. Consequently, a decision based on such matters is contrary to the guarantees contained in the Staff Regulations and must be annulled because it was adopted on the basis of a procedure vitiated by illegality. Nevertheless, the fact that the personal file of the official concerned does not contain information on which a decision of the administration is based can vitiate that decision only if that information had a decisive influence on the choice made by the appointing authority.

   (see paras 70-71)

   See: 21/70 Rittweger [1971] ECR 7, paras 29 to 41 ; 88/71 Brasseur v Parliament [1972] ECR 499, para. 18; 233/85 Bonino v Commission [1987] ECR 739, para. 11; T-78/92 Perakis v Parliament [1993] ECR II-1299, para. 27; T-109/92 Lacruz Bassols v Court of Justice [1994] ECRSC I-A-31 and II-105, para. 68

4.  The concept of misuse of powers has a precise scope which refers to the use of its powers by an administrative authority for a purpose other than that for which they were conferred upon it. A decision is vitiated by misuse of powers only if it appears on the basis of objective, relevant and consistent evidence to have been taken with the purpose of achieving an end other than that stated.

   (see para. 82)

   See: T-118/95 Anacoreta Correia v Commission [1996] ECRSC I-A-283 and II-835, para. 25; T-112/96 and T-115/96 Sé ché v Commission [1999] ECRSC I-A-115 and II-623, para. 139; T-97/99 and T-99/99 Charnier and O'Hannrachain v Parliament [2001] ECRSC I-A-1 and II-1, para. 104