JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Second Chamber)

9 April 2003

Case T-155/01

Robert Walton

v

Commission of the European Communities

‛Temporary staff — Dismissal for unsatisfactory performance of duties — Action for annulment and for compensation for dismissal’

Full text in English   II-595

Application for:

principally for annulment of the letter of 3 October 2000, whereby the Commission terminated the applicant's employment as a member of the temporary staff, and for compensation for breach of his contract of employment.

Held:

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

Summary

1. Officials — Actions — Act adversely affecting an official — Definition — Letter terminating the contract of a member of the temporary staff — Contract already terminated by a prior act of the member of staff concerned — Precluded

   (Staff Regulations, Arts 90(2) and 91(1); Conditions of Employment of other Servants, Art. 46)

2. Procedure — Application — Requirements as to form — Summary of the pleas in law on which it is based

   (EC Statute of the Court of Justice, Art, 19; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 44(1) (c))

1.  The rules of the administration and judicial proceedings brought under them are both to be directed against an act adversely affecting an official within the meaning of Articles 90(2) and 91(1) of the Staff Regulations and Article 46 of the Conditions of Employment of other Servants, in other words against a measure taken by the competent authority which gives rise to binding legal effects capable of directly and immediately affecting the applicant's interests by significantly altering his legal position. A letter terminating a contract as a member of the temporary staff may not be considered to be an act adversely affecting the member of staff concerned if that contract had already been terminated by a prior act on his part, such as might result from his conduct in unilaterally ceasing to perform his duties, leaving his place of employment and entering the service of a new employer, while informing the institution that he is no longer willing or able to carry out his contract.

   (see paras 27-28, 32, 35)

   See: 204/85 Stroghili v Court of Auditors [1987] ECR 389, para. 6; T-184/94 O'Casey v Commission [1998] ECRSC II-565, para. 63, and the case-law cited

2.  Under Article 19 of the Statute of the Court of Justice and Article 44(1 )(c) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, an application must state the subject-matter of the proceedings and a summary of the pleas in law on which it is based. The information given must be sufficiently clear and precise to enable the Court to perform its judicial review, if necessary without other supporting information. In order to ensure legal certainty and the sound administration of justice, if an action is to be admissible, the essential points of fact and law on which it is based must be apparent, in a coherent and comprehensible form, from the text of the application itself.

   (see para 40)

   See: T-85/92De Hoe v Commission [1993] ECR II-523, para 20; T-128/96 Lebedef v Commission [19961 ECRSC I-A-629 and II-1679, para 24