ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE FIRST CHAMBER OF THE CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL

(Removal from the register – Discontinuance – Costs – Admissibility)

Application: brought under Articles 236 EC and 152 EA, in which X seeks, first, annulment of the opinion concerning her given by the Invalidity Committee on 22 June 2007, and of the decision of the Parliament’s Director of Personnel of 27 June 2007 that she did not suffer from permanent and total disability making it impossible for her to perform her duties, and, secondly, that the file should be sent back to the Invalidity Committee for it to take a fresh decision on her case.

Held: Case F‑14/08 X v Parliament is removed from the register of the Tribunal. The Parliament is to bear, in addition to its own costs, three quarters of the costs incurred by the applicant. The applicant is to bear one quarter of her costs.

Summary

(Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal, Art. 89(5))

(Staff Regulations, Arts 59(4), 90 and 91)

1.As provided for in Article 89(5) of the Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal, a party who discontinues or withdraws from proceedings is to be ordered to pay the costs if they have been applied for in the observations of the other party on the discontinuance. However, upon application by the party who discontinues or withdraws from proceedings, the costs are to be borne by the other party if this appears justified by the conduct of that party. In an action brought by an official against a decision refusing to recognise his invalidity, where the institution failed to reply to a prior complaint within the four-month period for reaching an implied rejection decision and adopted an ambiguous attitude regarding the official’s position after he brought the action, it must be regarded as having contributed, through its conduct, to legal proceedings being brought, and may be ordered to pay part of the applicant official’s costs.

(see paras 6-10)

2.Where a decision of the appointing authority resulting from an opinion of the Invalidity Committee contains, in addition to a view on an official’s fitness for work which does not, in itself, alter that person’s previous legal position, an instruction for him to return to work, that decision constitutes an act adversely affecting the official which he is entitled to challenge.

(see paras 14, 17, 19)