Judgments nº T-402/18 of Tribunal General de la Unión Europea, January 29, 2020

• Resolution Date: January 29, 2020
• Issuing Organization: Tribunal General de la Unión Europea
• Decision Number: T-402/18

(Civil service - Strike action by interpreters - Measures for the requisition of interpreters adopted by the European Parliament - No legal basis - Liability - Non-material damage)

In Case T-402/18,

Roberto Aquino, residing in Brussels (Belgium), and the other applicants whose names are set out in the annex, (1) represented by L. Levi, lawyer,

applicants,

v

European Parliament, represented by O. Caisou-Rousseau, E. Taneva and T. Lazian, acting as Agents,

defendant,

supported by

Council of the European Union, represented by M. Bauer and R. Meyer, acting as Agents,

intervener,

ACTION under Article 270 TFEU seeking, first, annulment of the decision of 2 July 2018 of the Parliament’s Director-General for Personnel requisitioning interpreters and conference interpreters for 3 July 2018 and of the subsequent decisions of the Parliament’s Director-General for Personnel requisitioning interpreters and conference interpreters for 4, 5, 10 and 11 July 2018 and, secondly, compensation for the non-material damage, assessed on an equitable basis at EUR 1 000 per person, which the applicants allegedly suffered as a result of those decisions,

THE GENERAL COURT (Sixth Chamber, Extended Composition),

composed of M. van der Woude, President, S. Papasavvas (Rapporteur), D. Spielmann, Z. Csehi and O. Spineanu-Matei, Judges,

Registrar: L. Ramette, Administrator,

having regard to the written part of the procedure and further to the hearing on 9 October 2019,

gives the following

Judgment

Background to the dispute

1 The applicants, Roberto Aquino and the other applicants whose names are set out in the annex, are interpreters and conference interpreters at the European Parliament.

2 On 14 July 2017, a decision altering the working conditions of interpreters and conference interpreters was adopted by the Secretary-General of the Parliament.

3 That decision was implemented in the work programmes for interpreters and led, in October 2017, to the filing of a provisional notice of strike action by the Inter-Trade Union Committee (the ‘ITUC’), which includes, inter alia, the Syndicat des Fonctionnaires Internationales et Européens - Section du Parlement européen (Union of International and European Civil Servants - European Parliament Section (SFIE-PE)). However, following the resumption of discussions with the Secretary-General of the Parliament, the notice of strike action was withdrawn.

4 On 28 May 2018, the ITUC filed a new provisional notice of strike action covering the period from 5 June to 20 July 2018.

5 On 5 and 7 June 2018, the ITUC informed all the staff of the Parliament, on the one hand, and the President of the Parliament, on the other, of the course of action planned up to 14 June 2018.

6 On 8 June 2018, the Parliament’s Director-General for Personnel sent the ITUC a table setting out the number of interpreters to be requisitioned for the period from 12 to 14 June 2018 and also asked the ITUC to submit to him any comments that the trade unions and staff associations (the ‘TUSAs’) of the institution’s staff may have on that list before 11 June 2018 at 14.00.

7 On 9 and 11 June 2018, the ITUC sent its observations to the Parliament’s Director-General for Personnel.

8 By decision of 11 June 2018, the Parliament’s Director-General for Personnel requisitioned interpreters and conference interpreters for the period from 12 to 14 June 2018.

9 Similar procedures were conducted for the periods from 18 to 22 June 2018 and from 25 to 27 June 2018 and gave rise to decisions requisitioning interpreters and conference interpreters for those periods.

10 On 25 June 2018, the ITUC informed the President of the Parliament that the notice of strike action had been extended until 14 September 2018.

11 On 27 June 2018, the Parliament’s Director-General for Personnel requested the ITUC to submit its observations on the timetable of requisitions planned for the period from 3 to 5 July 2018, by no later than midday on 29 June 2018.

12 On 29 June 2018, the ITUC sent its comments to the President of the Parliament and the Parliament’s Director-General for Personnel.

13 On 2 July 2018, Parliament’s Director-General for Personnel informed the ITUC that the requisitions necessary for the proper conduct of parliamentary business would be made and that a copy of the decisions requisitioning interpreters and conference interpreters for the period from 3 to 5 July 2018 would be sent to it.

14 By decision of 2 July 2018, the Parliament’s Director-General for Personnel requisitioned interpreters and conference interpreters, including some of the applicants, for 3 July 2018 (the ‘decision of 2 July 2018’).

Procedure

15 By document lodged at the Court Registry on 3 July 2018, the applicants brought the present action.

16 By separate document lodged at the Court Registry on the same day, the applicants submitted an application for interim measures. By order of 4 July 2018, Aquino and Others v Parliament (T-402/18 R, not published, EU:T:2018:404), that application was dismissed and the costs reserved.

17 By separate document lodged at the Court Registry on 17 July 2018, the applicants lodged, on the basis of Article 86 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, a statement modifying the application in order to take account of the adoption of three decisions on 3, 4 and 7 July 2018 by which the Parliament’s Director-General for Personnel requisitioned interpreters and conference interpreters for 4, 5, 10 and 11 July 2018 (the ‘decisions adopted after the action was brought’).

18 By letter from the Registrar of 30 July 2018, the applicants were informed that, pursuant to Article 91(4) of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union (the ‘Staff Regulations’), the main proceedings had been stayed pending the adoption of an express or implied decision rejecting the complaint they had lodged on 3 July 2018.

19 By document lodged at the Court Registry on 18 October 2018, the Council of the European Union applied for leave to intervene in the present proceedings in support of the form of order sought by the Parliament.

20 By letter of 7 November 2018, the applicants informed the Court that the Parliament had rejected their complaint by decision of 5 November 2018.

21 By letter of the Registrar of 15 November 2018, the applicants were informed that the proceedings had been resumed.

22 The Parliament lodged its defence on 22 January 2019.

23 By decision of 24 January 2019, the President of the Sixth Chamber of the General Court granted the Council leave to intervene.

24 The Council lodged its statement in intervention on 18 March 2019 and the main parties submitted their observations on that statement within the periods prescribed.

25 On 25 March 2019, on a proposal from the Judge-Rapporteur, the Court (Sixth Chamber), by way of measures of organisation of procedure provided for in Article 89 of the Rules of Procedure, invited the applicants to produce the list of interpreters and conference interpreters requisitioned for 3 July 2018. The applicants complied with that measure within the time allowed.

26 The applicants lodged their reply on 1 April 2019.

27 By letter lodged at the Court Registry on 3 April 2019, Cécile Dupont, Françoise Joostens, Agnieszka Matuszek, Joanna Trzcielinska Inan and Frank van den Boogaard withdrew their application (the ‘partial withdrawal’). By documents lodged at the Court Registry on 5 April 2019, the Parliament and the Council submitted observations on the partial withdrawal. By order of 30 April 2019, the President of the Sixth Chamber of the General Court removed the names of those persons from the list of applicants and ruled on the costs relating to the partial withdrawal.

28 The Parliament lodged a rejoinder on 10 May 2019, the date on which the written part of the procedure was closed.

29 As a member of the Sixth Chamber was unable to sit, the President of the Sixth Chamber designated another Judge to complete the chamber.

30 Acting on a proposal from the Sixth Chamber, the Court decided, pursuant to Article 28 of the Rules of Procedure, to refer the case to a chamber sitting in extended composition.

31 On a proposal from the Judge-Rapporteur, the Court (Sixth Chamber, Extended Composition) decided to open the oral part of the procedure and, by way of measures of organisation of procedure provided for in Article 89 of the Rules of Procedure, put questions to the parties and requested, first, the Parliament to provide the Court with the decision by which it had determined the authorities that were to exercise within the Parliament the powers conferred by the Staff Regulations on the appointing authority and, secondly, the applicants to produce the ‘ad hoc agreement of January 2014’ to which they referred in the application. The parties complied with those requests within the period prescribed.

32 The parties presented oral argument and replied to the Court’s oral questions at the hearing on 9 October 2019.

Forms of order sought

33 The applicants claim that the Court should:

- annul the decision of 2 July 2018 and the decisions adopted after the action was brought;

- order the Parliament to pay compensation for the non-material damage suffered, assessed on an equitable basis at EUR 1 000 per person;

- order the Parliament to pay all of the costs.

34 The Parliament contends that the Court should:

- dismiss the action as inadmissible in part and unfounded in part;

- order the applicants to pay the costs.

35 The Council contends that the Court should:

- dismiss the action as inadmissible in part and unfounded in part;

- make an appropriate order...