Judgments nº T-91/17 of Tribunal General de la Unión Europea, February 14, 2019

• Resolution Date: February 14, 2019
• Issuing Organization: Tribunal General de la Unión Europea
• Decision Number: T-91/17

(Civil service - Accredited parliamentary assistants - Sick leave - Sick leave spent elsewhere than at the place of employment - Unauthorised absence - Article 60 of the Staff Regulations - Duty of care - Principle of good administration)

In Case T-91/17,

L, accredited parliamentary assistant at the European Parliament, represented by I. Coutant Peyre, lawyer,

applicant,

v

European Parliament, represented by M. Windisch and Í. Ní Riagáin Düro, acting as Agents,

defendant,

application based on Article 270 TFEU and seeking annulment of the decision of the European Parliament of 31 August 2016 concerning unauthorised absences of the applicant,

THE GENERAL COURT (Ninth Chamber),

composed of S. Gervasoni, President, K. Kowalik-Bańczyk and C. Mac Eochaidh (Rapporteur), Judges,

Registrar: E. Coulon,

gives the following

Judgment

Background to the dispute

1 On 22 May 2014, the applicant, L, was recruited by the authority empowered to conclude contracts of employment (‘the AECE’) of the European Parliament as an accredited parliamentary assistant (‘APA’) to assist a member of that institution (‘the M.E.P.’), under a contract expiring at the end of the 2014/2019 parliamentary term, with Brussels (Belgium) as the place of employment.

2 On 1 August 2016, the applicant sent a medical certificate to the Medical Leave Service of the Parliament (‘the Medical Leave Service’) issued in Brussels, for the period from 30 July to 7 August 2016.

3 On 8 August 2016, in the late afternoon, the applicant sent a new medical certificate to the Medical Leave Service, issued on the same date in [confidential], (1) for the period from 8 to 12 August 2016.

4 On the same day, a few minutes after sending that certificate, the Medical Leave Service sent the applicant, by email, a standard acknowledgement of receipt requesting him to specify the address where he could be contacted during that period of sick leave. That standard reply was accompanied by a copy of the decision of the Secretary-General of 12 September 2014 laying down internal rules on medical examinations in connection with absence from work on medical grounds and periodic medical examinations of persons claiming the invalidity allowance (‘the internal rules on absences on medical grounds’).

5 On the same day, a few minutes after receiving the email referred to in paragraph 4 above, the applicant informed the Medical Leave Service, by email, of his address in [confidential], his telephone number as well as the date fixed for his next medical examination.

6 According to the Parliament, on 9 August 2016, the Medical Leave Service asked the applicant, by email, whether he had obtained prior authorisation from the AECE to leave his place of employment in order to spend his sick leave in [confidential]. The applicant denies having received such an email.

7 Two other medical certificates, issued in [confidential] and covering the period from 13 to 17 August 2016 and from 18 to 22 August 2016, were then sent by the applicant to the Medical Leave Service.

8 By decision of 26 August 2016 (‘the decision of 26 August 2016’) the Parliament considered, on the basis of Article 60 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union (‘the Staff Regulations’), that the period of absence between 8 and 22 August 2016 was unjustified because the applicant had not obtained prior authorisation from the AECE to spend his sick leave elsewhere than at the place where he is employed. Consequently, under that decision, the period of absence between 8 and 22 August 2016 had to be deducted from the applicant’s annual leave or, where appropriate, deducted from his salary if there was no outstanding leave entitlement. That decision was sent to the applicant by email and by registered letter.

9 On the same day, the applicant challenged the decision of 26 August 2016 by means of two emails sent to the Medical Leave Service.

10 The applicant subsequently sent two new medical certificates drawn up in [confidential] to the Medical Leave Service, covering his absences from 23 to 27 August 2016 and from 28 August to 2 September 2016.

11 On 30 August 2016, the applicant sent a new medical certificate, issued in Brussels, with regard to the period from 28 August to 4 September 2016.

12 By decision of 31 August 2016, the Parliament considered that the applicant’s absence in respect of the period from 28 August to 4 September 2016, as certified by the medical certificate issued in Belgium, was justified. The Parliament, on the other hand, in that decision considered that the applicant’s absence in respect of the period from 23 to 27 August 2016 was unauthorised in the light of Article 60 of the Staff Regulations, in so far as the applicant had not obtained prior permission from the AECE to spend his sick leave other than at the place of his employment.

13 On 29 September 2016, the applicant lodged a complaint against the decision of 31 August 2016 and that of 26 August 2016, under Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations.

14 By decision of 8 February 2017, the Secretary-General of the Parliament rejected that complaint as unfounded.

Procedure and forms of order sought

15 By application lodged at the Court Registry on 30 January 2017, the applicant applied for legal aid, which was granted by order of the President of the General Court of 19 October 2017.

16 By application lodged at the Court Registry on 29 November 2017, the applicant brought the present action.

17 The applicant brought an application under Article 66 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, seeking anonymity and the exclusion of certain personal data from public view, which was granted by the Court.

18 Since the parties had not requested a hearing under Article 106(1) of the Rules of Procedure, the General Court (Ninth Chamber), considering that it had sufficient information available to it from the material in the file, decided to rule on the action without an oral hearing, in accordance with Article 106(3) of the Rules of Procedure.

19 In the application, the applicant claims that the Court should annul the decision of 31 August 2016.

20 In the reply, the applicant claims that the Court should order the Parliament to pay him the...