Judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 5 March 2019.Ralph Pethke v European Union Intellectual Property Office.Civil Service — Officials — Assignment — Reassignment of a Head of Service to a post of principal administrator — Article 7(1) of the Staff Regulations — Interests of the service — Equivalence of posts — Discrimination on grounds of sex — Proportionality –Action for damages — Inadmissibility — Failure to comply with the pre-litigation procedure.Case T-169/17.

Judgment // 05/03/2019 // 3 min read
bookmark

Judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 5 March 2019 –Pethke v EUIPO

(Case T‑169/17)

(Civil Service — Officials — Assignment — Reassignment of a Head of Service to a post of principal administrator — Article 7(1) of the Staff Regulations — Interests of the service — Equivalence of posts — Discrimination on grounds of sex — Proportionality –Action for damages — Inadmissibility — Failure to comply with the pre-litigation procedure)

  1. Judicial proceedings — Measures of organisation of procedure — Written questions put to the parties — Freedom of the General Court in its absolute discretion to assess the facts and evidence

(Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Arts 88 and 89(1))

(see paras 33-35, 38)

  1. Judicial proceedings — Production of evidence — Time limit — Evidence lodged out of time — Conditions

(Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 85(1) and (3))

(see paras 37, 43)

  1. Officials — Organisation of departments — Assignment of staff — Reassignment — Administration’s discretion — Limits — Interests of the service — Compliance with the principle of assignment to an equivalent post — Judicial review — Limits — Breach of principle of proportionality — None

(Staff Regulations of Officials, Art. 7(1))

(see paras 51-55, 61, 92, 97, 102, 105, 122, 123)

  1. Officials — Decision adversely affecting an official — Obligation to state reasons — Scope — Error of fact in an otherwise adequate statement of reasons in a decision — No bearing on the lawfulness of the decision

(Art. 296 TFEU; Staff Regulations of Officials, Art. 25, 2nd para.)

(see paras 58, 93)

  1. Judicial proceeding — Application initiating proceedings — Formal requirements — Brief summary of the pleas in law on which the application is based — Similar requirements for submissions made in support of a plea — Imprecise formulation of a claim — Inadmissibility

(Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 76(d))

(see paras 112, 113, 115)

  1. Actions brought by officials — Compensation action brought without pre-litigation procedure in accordance with the Staff Regulations — Inadmissibility

(Staff Regulations of Officials, Arts 90 and 91)

(see paras 128, 129, 132-135, 138, 139)

Re:

Action brought under Article 270 TFEU seeking, first, annulment of the decision of the Executive Director of EUIPO of 17 October 2016 changing the assignment of the applicant from the post of director of the ‘Operations’ department to a post in the EUIPO ‘Observatory’ department and, secondly, compensation for the damage allegedly suffered by the applicant.

Operative part

The Court:

  1. Dismisses the action;

  2. Orders Mr Ralph Pethke to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).