Volltextveröffentlichung

• EU-Kommission

  Andrew Macrae Moat gegen Kommission der Europäischen Gemeinschaften.

  [fremdsprachig] Beamte - Schadensersatzklage - Durchführung eines Urteils über die Aufhebung einer Ernennung - Verspätete Beurteilung.

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof (Verfahrensdokumentation)

  Beamte - Schadensersatzklage - Durchführung eines Urteils über die Aufhebung einer Ernennung - Verspätete Beurteilung.

Wird zitiert von ... (9)Zitiert selbst (7)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EuG, 16.12.1993 - T-58/92

  Andrew Macrae Moat gegen Kommission der Europäischen Gemeinschaften. - Beamte - …

  Auszug aus EuG, 21.06.1996 - T-41/95

  APPLICATION for compensation for harm allegedly suffered by the applicant as a result of the failure to implement or delay in implementing the judgment of the Court of First Instance in Case T-58/92 Moat v Commission [1993] ECR II-1443, the delay in completing his 1991-1993 staff report, and the failure to give a reasoned reply to a memorandum of 30 March 1994 described as a request and/or complaint,.

  By the judgment in Case T-58/92 Moat v Commission, referred to above, the Court of First Instance annulled the Commission's decision rejecting the applicant's candidature for post IX. A.7 and that appointing Mr T. to that post and dismissed the remainder of the application.

  He also asked in his memorandum for compensation for the harm allegedly suffered by him on account of the means adopted by the defendant to implement the judgment in Case T-58/92 (Annex 2 to the application).

  The defendant observes in that regard that in its judgment in Case T-58/92, referred to above, paragraph 32, the Court, considering of its own motion whether the applicant had an interest in bringing the action, concluded that the applicant retained an interest in seeking the annulment of the appointments of the other candidates to the disputed posts since he could still aspire thereto, having regard to the fact that, by the time the judgment was implemented, the possibility that he could still be employed by the institution in which the posts filled by means of the contested measures were vacant could not be excluded.

  The applicant maintains that his action is admissible inasmuch as even if he no longer had any interest in applying for post IX.A.7 when Vacancy Notice COM/41/94 was published, he suffered specific damage as a result of having lost a chance of promotion owing to the misconduct of the defendant in failing to duly implement the judgment of the Court in Case T-58/92.

  In the first place, the applicant called in question in his memorandum not Vacancy Notice COM/41/94 as such, but the defendant's conduct in not reexamining his application for post IX. A.7 and its delay in implementing the judgment in Case T-58/92 with respect to the post at issue, thus depriving him of the opportunity of being promoted.

  The applicant complains that the Commission failed to comply with the judgment in Case T-58/92 by failing either to reconsider his candidature for post IX.A.7 on its own initiative or to republish, without delay, a new vacancy notice relating to that post; secondly, he complains that the Commission completed his staff report for the period from 1 July 1991 to 30 June 1993 late; and, thirdly, he criticizes the Commission for not having replied by way of a reasoned decision to his memorandum described as a request and/or complaint.

  Failure to implement or delay in implementing the judgment in Case T-58/92.

  The applicant observes that in Case T-58/92 the Court annulled the contested appointment, stating that annulment would compensate him for the damage suffered by him as a result of the improper appointment since, taking into account, in particular, the time required for compliance with a judgment, the prospect that the applicant would at that date still be employed by the institution within which the posts filled by the contested measures were vacant could not be excluded.

  If it had taken such steps, the defendant would have acted in the interest of the service and in accordance with paragraph 32 of the judgment in Case T-58/92.

  The defendant submits that the applicant is mistaken as to the scope of the annulment in the judgment in Case T-58/92 when he asserts that Vacancy Notice COM/6/92 remained open following the annulment and that the institution should have assumed that he was still a candidate for that post ( Hochbaum, referred to above, paragraph 15).

  The applicant's claim for compensation for the harm allegedly suffered by him as a result of the failure to implement or delay in implementing the judgment in Case T-58/92 must therefore be rejected.

  As regards the alleged harm suffered by the applicant as a result of the anxiety caused him by the delay in the completion of his staff report, the Court considers that even though after the judgment in Case T-58/92 the applicant might have wished to know the content of his latest staff report, it appears that the duration of the disputed delay could not, in the circumstances described in paragraph 53, have been such as to cause the applicant real uncertainty as to his future.

  It was for the defendant to have informed the candidates for vacancy COM/6/92 of the steps taken to implement the judgment in Case T-58/92.

  The defendant points out that Vacancy Notice COM/41/94 of 10 March 1994, which was distributed to all the staff, was an appropriate and sufficient reaction to the judgment in Case T-58/92 and that it made it plain by implication that Vacancy Notice COM/6/92 had been cancelled.

  The Court finds, first, that the applicant asked in his memorandum of 30 March 1994 what were the exact intentions of the defendant with regard to implementing the judgment in Case T-58/92 and filling post IX. A.7.

  It follows from the foregoing considerations (paragraph 42) that the defendant was not obliged to inform the applicant personally of the steps taken to implement the judgment in Case T-58/92 and that the applicant was aware of Vacancy Notice COM/41/94 and the cancellation of Vacancy Notice COM/6/92 so that he could have applied for post IX. A.7.

  The Court points out, furthermore, that the defendant rejected by reasoned decision of 11 November 1994 the applicant's complaint of 3 September 1994 which related both to the delay in implementing the judgment in Case T-58/92 and the delay in completing his 1991-1993 staff report.

• EuG, 14.02.1990 - T-38/89

  Ingfried Hochbaum gegen Kommission der Europäischen Gemeinschaften. - Beamte - …

  Auszug aus EuG, 21.06.1996 - T-41/95

  The applicant accepts that, where an appointment is annulled by the Community judicature, the institution is not obliged to reopen the original procedure but may cancel it and re-advertise the post at issue (Case T-38/89 Hochbaum v Commission [1990] ECR II-43, paragraph 15).
• EuG, 08.06.1995 - T-496/93

  Auszug aus EuG, 21.06.1996 - T-41/95

  Next, it should be observed that, according to settled case-law, where there are no particular circumstances justifying it, the absence from an official's personal file of his staff report because of the late completion of the latter is capable of giving rise, in so far as that official is concerned, to non-material damage if, on the one hand, his career could have been affected thereby or if, on the other, that fact resulted in his being put in an uncertain or anxious state of mind with regard to his future (see, most recently, Case T-496/93 Allo v Commission [1995] ECR-SC II-405, paragraph 89).

• EuG, 17.06.1993 - T-65/92

  Monique Arauxo-Dumay gegen Kommission der Europäischen Gemeinschaften. - Beamte - …

  Auszug aus EuG, 21.06.1996 - T-41/95

  Moreover, the applicant misconstrues the duty of care incumbent on the institution, which can never be interpreted as requiring the administration to break the rules laid down in the Staff Regulations (Case T-68/91 Barbi v Commission [1992] ECR II-2127 and Case T-65/92 Arauxo-Dumay v Commission [1993] ECR II-597, paragraph 37).
• EuG, 10.07.1992 - T-68/91

  Giovanni Barbi gegen Kommission der Europäischen Gemeinschaften. - Beamte - …

  Auszug aus EuG, 21.06.1996 - T-41/95

  Moreover, the applicant misconstrues the duty of care incumbent on the institution, which can never be interpreted as requiring the administration to break the rules laid down in the Staff Regulations (Case T-68/91 Barbi v Commission [1992] ECR II-2127 and Case T-65/92 Arauxo-Dumay v Commission [1993] ECR II-597, paragraph 37).
• EuG, 26.02.1992 - T-16/89

  Hans Herkenrath und andere gegen Kommission der Europäischen Gemeinschaften. - …

  Auszug aus EuG, 21.06.1996 - T-41/95

  It should be recalled at the outset that it has been consistently held that in order for applicants to be able to claim compensation they must demonstrate that the institution has committed a fault, that a definite and quantifiable loss has occurred and that a causal link exists between the fault and the alleged loss (judgment of the Court of First Instance in Case T-16/89 Herkenrath and Others v Commission [1992] ECR II-275, paragraph 36).
• EuG, 09.02.1994 - T-82/91

  Edward Patrick Latham gegen Kommission der Europäischen Gemeinschaften. - Beamte …

  Auszug aus EuG, 21.06.1996 - T-41/95

  It should be observed that, although it is trae that an applicant who has retired has no interest in seeking the annulment of a vacancy notice or of a decision appointing an official in relation to a post to which he can no longer aspire, he nevertheless retains a personal interest in bringing an action seeking compensation for the harm allegedly caused by the decision to refuse to promote him and by various faults and omissions committed by the administration (Case T-82/89 Marcato v Commission [1990] ECR II-735, paragraphs 53 and 54, and Case T-82/91 Latham v Commission [1994] ECR-SC II-61, paragraphs 24 and 25).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EuGöD, 15.05.2006 - F-3/05

  Nadine Schmit gegen Kommission der Europäischen Gemeinschaften. - Beamte - …

  47 La requérante rétorque qu'il a été jugé qu'un fonctionnaire, dans une situation identique à la sienne, conserve un intérêt personnel à poursuivre un recours visant à la réparation du préjudice prétendument causé par la décision de refus de le promouvoir (arrêt du Tribunal de première instance du 21 juin 1996, T-41/95, Moat/Commission, RecFP p. I-A-319 et II-939, point 26).
• EuG, 02.04.1998 - T-86/97

  Apostolidis / Gerichtshof

  Or, il ressort d'une jurisprudence constante que l'AIPN n'est pas tenue de donner suite à une procédure de pourvoi d'un poste engagée s'il existe des raisons objectives qui justifient une telle décision (arrêts du Tribunal du 19 octobre 1995, 0bst/Commission, T-562/93, RecFP p. II-737, point 35, du 21 juin 1996, Moat/Commission, T-41/95, RecFP p. II-939, point 38, du 18 mars 1997, Rasmussen/Commission, T-35/96, RecFP p. II-187, point 60, et jurisprudence y citée).
• EuG, 27.11.2003 - T-331/00

  Bories u.a. / Kommission

  140 Les requérants rappellent que l'administration dispose d'un large pouvoir d'appréciation en matière de recrutement et qu'elle n'est pas tenue de donner suite à une procédure de recrutement, même à la suite d'un arrêt d'annulation (arrêts du Tribunal du 14 février 1990, Hochbaum/Commission, T-38/89, Rec. p. II-43 et du 21 juin 1996, Moat/Commission, T-41/95, RecFP p. I-A-319 et II-939).

• Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 25.11.1999 - C-153/99

  Kommission / Giannini

  15: - Urteil vom 21. Juni 1996 in der Rechtssache T-41/95 (Slg. ÖD 1996, I-A-319 und II-939, Randnrn. 38 und 39).
• EuG, 18.03.1997 - T-35/96

  Beamte - Stellenausschreibung - Aufhebung des laufenden Verfahrens - …

  En outre, dans la mesure où l'AIPN n'est pas tenue de donner suite à une procédure de recrutement engagée en application de l'article 29 du statut (arrêts du Tribunal du 14 février 1990, Hochbaum/Commission, T-38/89, Rec. p. II-43, point 15, et du 21 juin 1996, Moat/Commission, T-41/95, Rec. p. II-939, point 38), le principe de protection de la confiance légitime invoqué par le requérant ne pourrait se traduire par une obligation, à la charge de l'AIPN, de donner suite à la procédure, alors qu'une telle obligation a été expressément niée par le Tribunal.
• EuG, 28.08.1996 - T-112/96
  En particulier, lorsqu'un fonctionnaire proche de l'âge de la retraite obtient l'annulation des décisions rejetant sa candidature à un emploi et portant nomination d'un autre candidat à cet emploi, ses droits sont garantis de manière adéquate par la faculté dont il dispose de demander l'octroi de dommages et intérêts en raison d'un éventuel refus ou de l'impossibilité de le nommer à l'emploi en question (voir l'arrêt du Tribunal du 21 juin 1996, Moat/Commission, T-41/95, RecFP p. II-939, points 40 et 41).
• EuGöD, 15.04.2010 - F-104/08

  Angelidis / Parlament

  32 S'agissant du nouvel avis de vacance d'emploi, le Parlement fait valoir que, selon une jurisprudence constante (arrêt du Tribunal de première instance du 14 février 1990, Hochbaum/Commission, T-38/89, Rec. p. II-43, point 15, et du 21 juin 1996, Moat/Commission, T-41/95, RecFP p. I-A-319 et II-939, point 38), il n'avait pas l'obligation de reprendre l'ancienne procédure de recrutement et était en droit d'en ouvrir une nouvelle.
• EuG, 16.09.1998 - T-193/96

  Beamte - Beurteilung - Fortschreibung der vorherigen Beurteilung - Verspätete …

  Il ressort, en second lieu, de la jurisprudence que l'«absence, dans le dossier individuel d'un fonctionnaire, d'un rapport de notation, résultant d'un retard dans l'établissement de ce dernier, est susceptible d'engendrer, dans le chef de l'intéressé, un préjudice moral si, d'une part, sa carrière a pu en être affectée ou si, d'autre part, cette circonstance a entraîné chez lui un état d'incertitude ou d'inquiétude quant à son avenir" (voir arrêts du Tribunal du 8 juin 1995, Allo/Commission, T-496/93, RecFP p. II-405, point 89, du 21 juin 1996, Moat/Commission, T-41/95, RecFP p. II-939, point 54, et du 19 septembre 1996, Allo/Commission, T-386/94, RecFP p. II-1161, point 76).
• EuG, 24.06.2009 - T-144/09

  Daskalopulu / Kommission

  Rn. 5 Ensuite, il convient de rappeler que, selon une jurisprudence constante, pour qu'un requérant puisse prétendre à la réparation d'un préjudice, il doit démontrer une faute de l'institution, la réalité d'un préjudice certain et évaluable, ainsi qu'un lien de causalité entre la faute et le préjudice allégué (arrêts du Tribunal du 26 février 1992, Herkenrath e.a./Commission, T-16/89, Rec. p. II-275, point 36 et du 21 juin 1996, Moat/Commission, T-41/95, RecFP p. I-A-319 et II-939, point 37).