EUR-Lex Access to European Union law
This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62010CN0040
Case C-40/10: Action brought on 25 January 2010 — European Commission v Council of the European Union
Case C-40/10: Action brought on 25 January 2010 — European Commission v Council of the European Union
Case C-40/10: Action brought on 25 January 2010 — European Commission v Council of the European Union
OJ C 51, 27.2.2010, p. 27–27
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
27.2.2010 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 51/27 |
Action brought on 25 January 2010 — European Commission v Council of the European Union
(Case C-40/10)
2010/C 51/43
Language of the case: French
Parties
Applicant(s): European Commission (represented by: J. Currall, G. Berscheid and J.-P. Keppenne, acting as Agents)
Defendant(s): Council of the European Union
Form of order sought
|
— |
annul Council Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 1296/2009 of 23 December 2009 adjusting with effect from 1 July 2009 the remuneration and pensions of officials and other servants of the European Union and the correction coefficients applied thereto (1) apart from Articles 1 and 3 thereof, while maintaining its effects until the adoption by the Council of a new regulation correctly applying Articles 64 and 65 of the Staff Regulations and Annex XI thereto; |
|
— |
order Council of the European Union to pay the costs. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
The Commission seeks the annulment in part of Regulation (EU) No 1296/2009 in so far as the Council, for reasons of political expediency, has replaced in that regulation the amounts of the remuneration and pensions proposed by the Commission on the basis of a rate of adjustment of 3,7 % — which is the result of the mechanical application of Article 65 of the Staff Regulations and Annex XI thereto — by amounts corresponding to a coefficient of 1,85 %, which is incorrect. In the view of the Council, that replacement is justified by the economic and financial crisis and by the economic and social policy of the Union.
As regards Articles 2 and 4 to 17 of the contested regulation, the Commission puts forward a single plea, alleging breach of Article 65 of the Staff Regulations and Articles 1 and 3 of Annex XI to the Staff Regulations. The Council has circumscribed powers in this area, more so under the current version of the Staff Regulations — in which the details of the method of adjusting remuneration and pensions are set out in Annex XI thereto — than in the past, when the Court, on the basis of Article 65 of the Staff Regulations alone, concluded that the Council’s discretion was limited. The Commission also relies on a breach of legitimate expectations and of the principle of ‘patere legem quam ipse fecisti’.
Article 18 of the contested regulation, for its part, breaches Articles 3 to 7 of Annex XI to the Staff Regulations in creating the possibility of making an intermediate adjustment of remuneration, beyond the deadline laid down in Article 65 of the Staff Regulations and outside the framework of the conditions laid down in Articles 4 to 7 of Annex XI to the Staff Regulations.