(Officials – Member of the auxiliary staff – Conference interpreter – Article 74 of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants – Termination of employment)

Full text in French II - 0000

Application: first, for annulment of the decision no longer to engage conference interpreters who have reached the age of 65 years and, second, for damages.

Held: The decision of the Parliament of 30 November 2000, notified to the applicant on 10 February 2001, and the decision of the Parliament of 19 July 2001 rejecting the applicant’s complaint are annulled. The remainder of the application is dismissed. The Parliament is ordered to pay all the costs.

Summary

(Staff Regulations, Art. 91)

(Conditions of Employment of Other Servants, Arts 74 and 78)

3. Officials – Actions – Action for damages brought without a pre-litigation procedure consistent with the Staff Regulations – Inadmissibility

(Staff Regulations, Arts 90 and 91)

(Staff Regulations, Art. 91)

The precise legal categorisation of a letter or memorandum is a matter for the Court alone and not for the parties.

(see paras 64-65)

See: T-34/91 Whitehead v Commission [1992] ECR II-1723, para. 22; T-115/92 Hogan v Parliament [1993] ECR II-895, para. 36; T-132/97 Collins v Committee of the Regions [1998] ECR-SC I-A-469 and II-1379, para. 13; T-87/99 Hendrickx v Cedefop [2000] ECR-SC I-A-147 and II-679, para. 37

In the case of a contract limited to specific days, termination of employment is a characteristic and necessary condition of the recruitment of the interpreter and forms an integral part of that recruitment. It follows that Article 74 of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants concerning the situations in which the employment of auxiliary staff ceases has to be one of the provisions of Title III of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants from which the rules applicable to auxiliary session interpreters derogate.

Furthermore, taking account of the particular nature of the employment of those interpreters, their age cannot be relevant for the performance of their duties, so that their employment should have an age limit which, in the absence of any specific provision, should be that laid down by Article 74 of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants.

(see paras 100-101, 103-105, 108)

3. In the system of remedies established by Articles 90 and 91 of the Staff Regulations, an action for damages, which is an independent remedy by comparison with the action for annulment, is admissible only if it has been preceded by a pre-litigation procedure consistent with the provisions of the Staff Regulations. That procedure differs according to whether the harm in respect of which reparation is sought results from an act adversely affecting the applicant within the meaning of Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations or conduct on the part of the administration which is not in the nature of a decision.

In the former case, the person concerned must submit a complaint against the act in question to the appointing authority within the prescribed period. In the latter case, on the other hand, the administrative procedure must commence with the introduction of a request within the meaning of Article 90(1) of the Staff Regulations for reparation and, where appropriate, be followed by a complaint against the decision rejecting the request.

Where there is a direct link between an action for annulment and an action for damages, 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.

(see paras 122-123, 125)

See: T-17/90, T-28/91 and T-17/92 Camara Alloisio and Others v Commission [1993] ECR II-841, para. 46; T-500/93 Y v Court of Justice [1996] ECR-SC I‑A‑335 and II-977, paras 64 and 66

(see para. 129)

See: 79/71 Heinemann v Commission [1972] ECR 579, para. 11; T-94/92 X v Commission [1994] ECR-SC I-A-149 and II‑481, para. 52

(see para. 130)

See: C-343/87 Culin v Commission [1990] ECR I-225, paras 25 to 29; T-60/94 Pierrat v Court of Justice [1995] ECR-SC I-A-23 and II-77, para. 62