JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Fourth Chamber)

19 February 1998

Case T-169/96

Jean-Pierre Pierard

v

Commission of the European Communities

‛Representation of officials and servants of the Commission on administrative bodies and on organs set up under the Staff Regulations — Staff assigned to posts outside the European Union — No need to adjudicate’

Full text in French   II-205

Application for:

annulment of the decision of the Central Staff Committee of the Commission rejecting the proposals of Mr Chambellant concerning appointments to organs set up under the Staff Regulations and to administrative bodies and, in so far as may be necessary, of the decision adopted by the Commission expressly rejecting the applicant's complaint.

Decision:

No need to adjudicate

Abstract of the Judgment

The applicant is one of the three representatives of staff serving outside the European Union (PHUE) elected to the Central Staff Committee (CCP) in the elections held within the Commission during 1994.

The newly-elected CCP met in order to appoint members to the bodies set up under the Staff Regulations and the administrative bodies. On that occasion Mr Chambellant, another representative of the PHUE, sent the President of the CCP a note on 11 April 1995, on behalf of the PHUE, in which he informed him of the intention ‘of the group of regional delegates’ to propose that the CCP designate a number of their representatives in various committees and bodies of the Commission.

By note of 11 October 1995 to Mr Chambellant the President of the CCP, Mr Rijnoudt, rejected that request in the following terms: ‘[T]he practical application [of the proposal in your note of 11 April 1995] runs up against the immediate problem that representation outside the Union is not representation from a “local” committee. Although the note of 11 April was indeed considered to constitute a request of the 24 regional delegates, that request could not be granted because, in particular, even after all these years, the Commission has still not adopted a decision on the definitive form which representation outside the Union for the purposes of the Staff Regulations should take. Accordingly, I can only reiterate my conclusion as recorded in the minutes of the meeting of 14 and 15 June 1995: “In its present form, Mr Chambellant's note (11 April) cannot receive a positive response, having regard, in particular, to the fact that the staff serving outside the Union did not meet in a local committee. ”’

On 20 December 1995 the applicant submitted a complaint under Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations ‘against the decision of the CCP of 11 October 1995 not to grant Mr Jean-Noël Chambellant's request’.

Disappearance of the purpose of the proceedings

The Commission has stated that on 22 October 1997 it amended the rules concerning the composition and functioning of the staff committee (rules). It has thus adopted definitive arrangements for the representation of the PHUE which, in the Commission's view, render the proceedings devoid of purpose. The Commission emphasises that the adoption of the definitive arrangements for the representation of the PHUE is the logical consequence of what were purely provisional arrangements and can in no case be regarded as an admission that the transitional arrangements were in any way illegal (paragraph 21).

The applicant and the defendant have expressed their agreement that the Commission's amendments to the mies rendered the present proceedings devoid of purpose and that in those circumstances it was no longer necessary to adjudicate on the matter (paragraph 21).

Having regard to the fact that the proceedings have become devoid of all purpose, there is no need to consider to what extent the application was admissible (paragraph 25).

See: T-73/91 Gavilán v Parliament [1992] ECR II-1555, para. 30

Operative pari:

There is no need to adjudicate on the present application.