Judgments nº T-45/01 of Court of First Instance of the European Communities, October 05, 2004

Resolution DateOctober 05, 2004
Issuing OrganizationCourt of First Instance of the European Communities
Decision NumberT-45/01

In Case T-45/01,

Stephen G. Sanders, residing in Oxfordshire (United Kingdom) and the 94 applicants whose names appear in the annex, represented initially by P.†Roth QC, I.†Hutton, E.†Mitrophanous and A. Howard, Barristers, and subsequently by P.†Roth QC, I.†Hutton and B.†Lask, Barristers,

applicants,

v

Commission of the European Communities, represented by J. Currall, acting as Agent,

defendant,

supported by

Council of the European Union, represented initially by J.-P.†Hix and A.†Pilette and subsequently by J.-P. Hix and B.†Driessen, acting as Agents,

intervener,

APPLICATION to determine pursuant to the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 5†October†2004 in Case T-45/01 Sanders and Others v Commission [2004] ECR†II-3315 the amount of compensation due for the financial loss sustained by each of the applicants as a result of the fact that they were not recruited as members of the temporary staff of the European Communities for the time they worked at the Joint European Torus (JET) Joint Undertaking,

THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES (First Chamber),

composed of B.†Vesterdorf, President of the Chamber, M.†Jaeger and H.†Legal, Judges,

Registrar: C.†Kristensen, Administrator,

having regard to the written procedure and further to the hearing on 20 March 2007,

gives the following

Judgment

Background to the dispute and procedure

1††††††††By judgment of 5†October†2004 in Case T-45/01 Sanders and Others v Commission [2004] ECR†II-3315 (-the interlocutory judgment-), the Court of First Instance held that, in failing, in breach of the Statutes of the Joint European Torus (JET) Joint Undertaking, to offer the applicants contracts as members of the temporary staff, the Commission had committed an act of culpable illegality such as to give rise to the liability of the European Community, that that unlawful conduct had resulted in the loss to them of a genuine chance of recruitment as members of the temporary staff and that the applicants- loss lies in the difference between the salaries, related benefits and pension rights which the persons concerned would have received or acquired if they had worked for the JET project as members of the temporary staff and the salaries, related benefits and pension rights which they actually received or acquired as members of the contract staff (paragraphs 142, 158 and 167 of the interlocutory judgment).

2††††††††However, the Court of First Instance found that the applicants should have submitted their requests for compensation within a reasonable period, which cannot exceed five years from the time they became aware of the discrimination they complain of, and held that the damages due should be calculated, for each applicant, from the effective date of the earliest contract concluded or renewed with the applicant in each case, that date being no more than five years before the submission of his request for compensation to the Commission (paragraph 72 of the interlocutory judgment).

3††††††††Since the Court of First Instance was not in a position to determine the damages due to each of the applicants, the interlocutory judgment (paragraph 170) fixed the principles and criteria on the basis of which the parties were called upon to seek a settlement, failing which they were to put their submissions on the quantum of damages before the Court of First Instance.

4††††††††Accordingly, the parties were to:

(1)††††††determine the post and grade which each applicant would have held, on the basis of the functions he carried out, if he had been offered a contract as a member of the temporary staff on the effective date of the earliest contract concluded or renewed, that date not to be earlier than five years from the presentation of the request for compensation (paragraphs 169 and 171 of the interlocutory judgment);

(2)††††††reconstruct the career of the person concerned from the time of his recruitment or the start of the abovementioned five-year period at the earliest, taking into account:

-††††††††the average increase in salary for the equivalent post and grade of a member of the staff of the European Atomic Energy Community (EAEC), working for JET if applicable;

-††††††††any promotions the person concerned may have had during that period in the light of the grade and post selected, on the basis of the average number of promotions of members of the temporary staff of the EAEC in a comparable position (paragraph 172 of the interlocutory judgment);

(3)†††††† make the comparison between the situation of a member of the temporary staff of the Communities and that of a member of the contract staff in respect of net amounts, net of contributions, deductions or other levies charged under the applicable legislation (paragraph 173 of the interlocutory judgment).

5††††††††The Court of First Instance held that the liability period runs from the effective date of the earliest contract concluded or renewed in the five-year period before the submission of the request for compensation and ends either on the date on which the person concerned stopped working for the JET project, if that was before the end of the project on 31†December 1999, or on that date if he worked for the JET project until its conclusion (paragraph 174 of the interlocutory judgment).

6††††††††Finally, the Court of First Instance held that, since the damages compensate for the loss of salary and related benefits covered by the Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Communities and are calculated taking into account Community tax, they are net of any taxation and cannot be subject to deductions of national tax (paragraph 176 of the interlocutory judgment).

7††††††††Being unable to reach an agreement on all the points relating to the precise determination of the damages due to each of the applicants, the parties sent their submissions on the quantum of damages to the Court of First Instance on 28 October 2005.

8††††††††By measure of organisation of procedure notified on 19 December 2006, the Court of First Instance requested from the parties, in accordance with Article†64 of its Rules of Procedure, information and clarification concerning the points of difference which remained between them with regard to the assessment of the damage suffered by each of the applicants.

9††††††††The applicants replied to the Court of First Instance-s request by letter lodged at the Registry on 20 February 2007. The Commission made its observations known on the applicants- replies by letter lodged at the Registry on 1 March 2007.

10††††††In their replies to the Court of First Instance-s request, the parties, who set out their submissions on the quantum of damages following the measure of organisation of procedure, indicated that they had resolved certain of their disagreements and highlighted the points which were still at issue.

11††††††By order of the President of the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance of 7 March 2007, the application of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to intervene presented on 27†February 2007 was dismissed as being out of time in accordance with the combined provisions of Articles 115(1) and 116(6) of the Rules of Procedure.

12††††††At the hearing on 20†March 2007, the parties presented their oral arguments and their answers to the questions put by the Court of First Instance. The Commission submitted an amended version of the annexes to its observations of 1†March 2007.

13††††††At the end of the hearing, the President granted the applicants one week in which to submit any amendments in the light of the documents submitted at the hearing by the Commission. On 27 March 2007, following an application from the applicants, the President granted an extension of the time to the Commission and to the applicants until 30†March and 3†April 2007 respectively to enable the Commission to make final corrections to its submissions on the quantum of damages and the applicants to formulate their observations thereon.

14††††††The oral procedure was closed on 17†April†2007.

Submissions of the parties

15††††††The applicants claim that the Court of First Instance should:

-††††††††order the Commission to compensate them for their loss of earnings and other benefits caused by the breaches of Community law committed in respect of them, by paying a total amount for all the applicants of GBP†27†744†467, as at 31†October†2005;

-††††††††order the Commission to pay the costs.

16††††††The Commission, supported by the Council, contends that the Court of First Instance should:

-††††††††order it to compensate the applicants pursuant to the interlocutory judgment in accordance with its observations, in the total amount for all the applicants of GBP†5†767†682, as at 31†October†2005;

-††††††††order it to pay half the applicants- costs.

Law

Scope of the dispute rationae personae

17††††††In reply to the questions asked by the Court of First Instance at the hearing, the applicants stated that two of them†-†M.†Organ and M.R.†Sibbald†-†were not submitting claims for damages.

18††††††It is consequently necessary for the Court of First Instance to take formal note of this and to find that 93 of the 95 applicants are submitting claims for damages.

19††††††The applicants have moreover indicated that Ms S.†Rivers, who got married in the course of the proceedings, is referred to in the claims for damages as Ms S.†Playle. To avoid all risk of confusion, in the present judgment she is referred to as Ms Rivers-Playle.

On the quantum of the claims for damages

20††††††Without raising a plea of inadmissibility, the Commission contends that the applicants- claims for damages for the liability period laid down in the interlocutory judgment (1995 to 1999) are more than one and a half times greater than their original claims. It considers that, although those claims have been adjusted by the applicants in the light, inter alia, of information which it provided to them in the course of their...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT