Judgment of the General Court First Chamber of 10 March 2021, AM v EIB, Case T-134/19

• Date: 10 March 2021
• Year: 2021

52

Judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 10 March 2021, AM v EIB, Case T-134/19

Civil service – EIB staff – Remuneration – Admissibility – Time limit for submitting a request to initiate the

conciliation procedure – Act adversely affecting an official – Geographical mobilit y allowance – Transfer to

an external office – Refusal to grant the allowance – Action for annulment and for dama ges

The applicant, AM, was hired by the European Investment Bank (EIB) on 1 June 2014, on the basis of a

one-year fixed-term contract, which was subsequently renewed twice. From the start of his first

contract with the EIB and until 31 March 2017, he was assigned to the EIB’s external office in Vienna

(Austria). With effect from 1 April 2017 and until the end of the contract he had at that time, that is to

say 31 May 2020, the applicant was transferred to the EIB’s external office in Brussels (Belgium). On

30 June 2017, the EIB m ade a decision explaining that his transfer did not fall within the scope of the

EIB’s Staff Rules (‘the Staff Rules’) and that, therefore, he was not entitled to receive the geographical

mobility allowance. The EIB reiterated its refusal to pay that allowance to the applicant by a decision

adopted further to a request by the applicant that a conciliation procedure be opened (together, ‘the

contested decisions’). Furthermore, notwithstanding the fact that the EIB’s Conciliation Board found

that the applicant should have received the geographical mobility allowance from 1 April 2017, the

President of the EIB decided not to adopt that board’s findings, thus ending the conciliation

procedure.

The Court, seised of an action for annulment and for damages, annuls the contested decisions and

provides, for the first time, clarifications about the conditions for granting the geographical mobility

allowance to EIB staff.

Assessment of the Court

First, with regard to the subject matter of the action, the Court observes that, for EIB staff who

entered into service after 1 July 2013, the decision of the President of the EIB ending the conciliation

procedure is merely a precondition for bringing the matter before the EU judicature. The Court takes

the view, in that regard, that, like the case-law relating to disputes covered by the Staff Regulations of

Officials of the European Union or by the European Central Bank’s Staff Rules, claims for annulment

formally directed against the decision of the President of the EIB ending a conciliation procedure have

the effect of bringing before the EU judicature the act adversely affecting the applicant that forms the

subject matter of that procedure, except where the scope of that decision differs from that of the act

forming the subject matter of the conciliation procedure. Where that decision contains a re -

examination of the applicant’s situation in the light of new elements of law or of fact, or where it

changes or adds to the original act, it is a measure subject to review by the EU judicature, which will

take it into consideration when assessing the legality of the contested measure, or will even regard it

as an act adversely affecting the applicant replacing the contested measure. Since that is not the case

here, the Court concludes that there is therefore no need to rule specifically on that head of claim.

Next, with regard to the admissibility of the action, the Court rejects the EIB’s argument that the

period to challenge the non-payment of the geographical mobility allowance ran from the date on

which the applicant received his first salary statement following his transfer to the external office in

Brussels. The Court observes, in that regard, that although it is true that the applicant’s salary

statement for the month of April 2017 did convey, in financial terms, the effects of the decision to

transfer him to the external office in Brussels, the fact remains that that decision, and still less that

salary statement, did not clearly define the EIB’s position vis-à-vis the grant of the geographical

mobility allowance. The omission of an allowance from the salary statement of the person concerned

does not necessarily imply that the administration denies his or her entitlement to it.

Taking the view that the decision of 30 June 2017 is the first to set out clearly the EIB’s refusal to grant

the geographical mobility allowance to the applicant, the Court concludes that that decision is the first

act adversely affecting the applicant, which had the effect of setting time running for the purposes of

the time limits for making a complaint and bringing an action.