Official Journal of the European Union

C series

—

C/2025/527

(Case C-638/24 P)

(C/2025/527)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: EUCAP Sahel Niger (represented by: E. Raoult, avocate)

Other party to the proceedings: Marco Montanari

Forms of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

—Uphold the appeal and set aside in part the judgment of the General Court of 17 July 2024, Montanari v EUCAP Sahel Niger (T-371/22);

—Dismiss the application in its entirety;

—Order the applicant to pay the costs in Case T-371/22, including those relating to the present action.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

The appellant states that the EUCAP Sahel-Niger mission (‘the Mission’) has rules equivalent to the provisions on psychological harassment and the functional protection of officials contained in the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union. The General Court was therefore wrong to rely on the principle of equal treatment in order to apply Article 12a of the Staff Regulations to the applicant.

In view of the existence of rules and remedies specific to the Mission, with a ranking comparable to that of the rules of the Staff Regulations, the appellant submits that the General Court had no grounds for applying the provisions of the Staff Regulations. The General Court erred in law by basing its reasoning in paragraphs 142 to 152, 209 and 219 of the judgment under appeal on the Staff Regulations rather than on the body of rules specific to the Mission (including the Code of Conduct and Discipline). That circumstance should lead to the judgment being set aside in part.

As regards the right to good administration and the duty to have regard for the welfare of officials, the appellant notes that the body of common rules applicable in theatre, including the Code of Conduct and Discipline, the Generic Standards of Behaviour, the European Code of Good Administrative Behaviour, the OPLAN and the standing instructions (‘Standard Operating Procedures’) constitute legal bases which indisputably enable the right to good administration and the duty to have regard for the welfare of officials to be respected with no requirement to resort to the application by analogy of ‘certain provisions of the Staff Regulations’.

Decision 2012/392/CFSP, the Code of Conduct and Discipline, the Generic Standards of Behaviour and the OPLAN are rules adopted by the Council of the European Union. By applying the provisions of the Staff Regulations to the applicant, the General Court ruled out application of the rules referred to above which are specific to the common security and defence policy missions. By declining to apply those – specific – instruments, the General Court therefore set itself up as the judge of whether it was appropriate to apply the measures at issue, adopted by the Council.

Although the derogations from the jurisdiction of the EU Courts contained in the last sentence of the second subparagraph of Article 24(1) TEU and in the first paragraph of Article 275 TFEU, read in the light of the ‘H’ case-law, must be interpreted narrowly and although those Courts have jurisdiction in relation to management acts of the missions, the General Court has failed to set out exactly which precise provisions of the Treaties, or simply which legal basis, led it to disapply the aforementioned rules, which are specific to the Mission.

Consequently, having regard to the particular circumstances of the present case, the derogatory limitation on the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice established in the last sentence of the second subparagraph of Article 24(1) TEU and in the first paragraph of Article 275 TFEU cannot be regarded as sufficiently extensive in scope for it to be held that the Court of Justice has jurisdiction to judge whether it is appropriate to apply the common rules applicable in theatre, such as the Code of Conduct and Discipline, the Generic Standards of Behaviour or the OPLAN, or whether they should be disapplied in favour of the provisions contained in the Staff Regulations.

Accordingly, the General Court erred in law by applying the Staff Regulations to the applicant instead of acts and instruments adopted by the Council. On those grounds, the appellant requests that the judgment under appeal be set aside in part to the extent that it applies the Staff Regulations to staff members seconded by EU Member States to the Mission.

ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/527/oj

ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)

—