Gelex

Council Decision (EU, Euratom) 2016/454 of 22 March 2016 appointing three Judges to the European Union Civil Service Tribunal

In forceVersion 2016-03-22from 2014-10-01
Grade B

mapped from publisher markup. A grade says how a document's structure was obtained, not how reliable the law is.

Ask Gelex about this law

Address https://gelex.eu/eli/EU/decision/2016/454@2016-03-22/en

Contents
  1. Preamble
    1. Article 1
    2. Article 2

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular the fourth paragraph of Article 257 thereof,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community, and in particular paragraph 1 of Article 106a thereof,

Whereas:

(1) The mandate of two Judges of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (the Civil Service Tribunal) has ended with effect from 30 September 2014, and the mandate of a further Judge has ended with effect from 31 August 2015. It is therefore necessary under Article 2 and Article 3(1) of Annex I to the Protocol No 3 on the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, annexed to the Treaty on European Union, the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community, to appoint three Judges to fill those vacancies.

(2) Following a public call for applications published in 2013 with a view to the appointment of two Judges to the Civil Service Tribunal, the Committee set up by Article 3(3) of Annex I to the Protocol No 3 (the selection committee) delivered an opinion on the candidates' suitability to perform the duties of a Judge of the Civil Service Tribunal. The selection committee appended to its opinion a list of six candidates having the most suitable high-level experience.

(3) Following the political agreement on the reform of the judicial architecture of the European Union that led to the adoption of Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2015/2422 of the European Parliament and of the Council, the Court of Justice presented on 17 November 2015 a proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the transfer to the General Court of the European Union of jurisdiction at first instance in disputes between the Union and its servants with effect from 1 September 2016.

(4) In these circumstances, for reasons of timing, it is appropriate not to publish a new public call for applications, but rather to draw on the list of the six candidates having the most suitable high-level experience established by the selection committee following the public call for applications published in 2013.

(5) It is therefore appropriate to appoint three of the persons included on that list as Judges of the Civil Service Tribunal, ensuring a balanced composition of the Civil Service Tribunal on as broad a geographical basis as possible from among nationals of the Member States and with respect to the national legal systems represented. The three persons on that list having the most suitable high-level experience are Mr Sean VAN RAEPENBUSCH, Mr João SANT'ANNA and Mr Alexander KORNEZOV. Mr João SANT'ANNA and Mr Alexander KORNEZOV should be appointed with effect from the date of entry into force of this Decision. Given that Mr Sean VAN RAEPENBUSCH was already a Judge at the Civil Service Tribunal until 30 September 2014 and continued to hold office pending the Decision of the Council in accordance with Article 5 of Protocol No 3, it is appropriate to appoint him for a new mandate with effect from the day after the end of his previous mandate.

(6) It follows from Article 2 of Annex I to the Protocol No 3 that any vacancy is to be filled by the appointment of a new Judge for a period of six years. However, upon the application of the proposed Regulation on the transfer to the General Court of the European Union of jurisdiction at first instance in disputes between the Union and its servants, the Civil Service Tribunal will no longer exist, and the mandate of the three Judges appointed by this Decision will thus end ipso facto on the date preceding that on which that Regulation applies,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

The following are hereby appointed as Judges to the European Union Civil Service Tribunal:

Mr Sean VAN RAEPENBUSCH, with effect from 1 October 2014,

Mr João SANT'ANNA, with effect from 1 April 2016,

Mr Alexander KORNEZOV, with effect from 1 April 2016.

Article 2

This Decision shall enter into force on 1 April 2016.

Done at Brussels, 22 March 2016. For the Council The President A.G. Koenders

Versions

  1. 2016-03-22

Cited by

  • Appeal brought on 7 September 2016 by FV against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 28 June 2016 in Case F-40/15, FV v Council (Case T-639/16 P) Notice · Grade B
    First ground of appeal, alleging that the judgment under appeal was delivered by a formation of the Tribunal composed in infringement of Article 27(3) of the Rules of Procedure of the CST. The appellant is of the view that that infringement is characterised by the fact that Council Decision 2016/454 appointing three Judges to the European Union Civil Service Tribunal is itself vitiated by a lack of jurisdiction, an infringement of Articles 257 TFEU and 281 TFEU, an infringement of Annex I to Protocol No 3 to the Statute of the Court of Justice, an infringement of Article 13(2) TEU and an infri
  • Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) 26 March 2020 Judgment · Grade B
    By Decision 2016/454, the Council appointed three judges to the Civil Service Tribunal on 22 March 2016, namely Mr Van Raepenbusch, with effect from 1 October 2014, and Mr Sant’Anna and Mr Kornezov, with effect from 1 April 2016. For the purpose of appointing judges to those three posts (the appointment procedure at issue), the Council used the list of candidates drawn up following the public call for applications of 3 December 2013, including for the vacant post previously occupied by Ms Rofes i Pujol (the third post), even though the public call for applications did not refer to that post.
  • Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) 26 March 2020 Judgment · Grade B
    First, the General Court found that the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber), when it delivered the judgment of 28 June 2016, FV v Council (F‑40/15, EU:F:2016:137), was composed of the Judges K. Bradley, J. Sant’Anna and A. Kornezov. The General Court also found that, in accordance with the operative part and recital 5 of [Decision 2016/454], the Council had appointed, in the first place, Mr S. Van Raepenbusch, in the second place, Mr Sant’Anna and, in the third place, Mr Kornezov as Judges of the Civil Service Tribunal. Thus, the General Court observed that Judge Bradley had not been appoi
  • Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) 26 March 2020 Judgment · Grade B
    Secondly, the General Court examined the ground of appeal alleging a breach of the appointment procedure on the ground that the Council appointed a judge to the [third post] from the list of candidates drawn up as a result of the public call for applications [of] 3 December 2013 to fill the vacant posts occupied by Judges Van Raepenbusch and H. Kreppel in the Civil Service Tribunal, even though that list had not been drawn up for the purposes of appointing a judge to fill the [third post]. In this connection, the General Court held in paragraph 51 of the judgment of 23 January 2018, FV v Counc
  • Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) 26 March 2020 Judgment · Grade B
    As a preliminary point, it must be held that Decision 2016/454, by which the successor to the third post was appointed as judge to the Civil Service Tribunal, does not, as the Advocate General noted in particular in points 118 to 124 of her Opinion, constitute a measure of general application, for the purposes of Article 277 TFEU.
  • Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) 26 March 2020 Judgment · Grade B
    In so far as, according to paragraph 4 of the public call for applications of 3 December 2013, it was explicitly and exclusively launched with a view to filling the posts of the two judges whose term of office was due to expire on 30 September 2014, namely those held by Judges Van Raepenbusch and Kreppel, and not with a view also to filling the third post, previously held by Judge Rofes i Pujol whose term of office was to expire on 31 August 2015, the Council, in making the appointment to the latter post from the list of candidates drawn up as a result of that public call for applications, dis
  • Judgment of the General Court (Appeal Chamber) 23 January 2018 Judgment · Grade B
    In the context of the first ground, the appellant claims that the Chamber which delivered the judgment under appeal was improperly constituted. The Council was not entitled to draw from the list of candidates at issue, which had been established by the selection committee following the public call for applications launched on 3 December 2013, to appoint a judge to the post held by Judge Rofes i Pujol. That public call for applications merely concerned the posts held by Judge Van Raepenbusch and Judge Kreppel, whose terms of office were set to expire on 30 September 2014, and did not cover the
  • Judgment of the General Court (Appeal Chamber) 23 January 2018 Judgment · Grade B
    The Council disputes those arguments. The Chamber hearing the case was properly constituted. Decision 2016/454 is not unlawful. Contrary to the appellant’s claims, the Council was entitled to use the list at issue. It was not under an obligation to launch a new public call for applications each time a post became vacant at the Civil Service Tribunal. As is the practice in other international courts, it is possible to create a reserve list of candidates who may be appointed when a post becomes vacant. Consequently, the Council was entitled to draw from the list of candidates at issue to appoint
  • Judgment of the General Court (Appeal Chamber) 23 January 2018 Judgment · Grade B
    In the second place, it must be pointed out that Judge Bradley was not appointed as a judge to the Civil Service Tribunal by Decision 2016/454 and cannot therefore be the judge at issue. Conversely, Judge Sant’Anna and Judge Kornezov were appointed as judges to the Civil Service Tribunal by that decision.
  • Judgment of the General Court (Appeal Chamber) 23 January 2018 Judgment · Grade B
    In the third place, it must be recalled that the three candidates who were appointed as judges to the Civil Service Tribunal by Decision 2016/454 are Mr Van Raepenbusch, Mr Sant’Anna and Mr Kornezov. As is apparent from the enacting terms and recital 5 of Decision 2016/454, Mr Van Raepenbusch was the first candidate to be appointed by the Council and was confirmed in his post for a new term of office with effect from the day after the end of his previous term of office, namely 1 October 2014. Accordingly, Mr Van Raepenbusch was not appointed to the post held by Judge Rofes i Pujol and is there
  • Judgment of the General Court (Appeal Chamber) 23 January 2018 Judgment · Grade B
    In the fourth place, it must be noted that the other two candidates who were appointed as judges to the Civil Service Tribunal by Decision 2016/454 are Mr Sant’Anna and Mr Kornezov and that one of them is therefore the judge at issue. Both those judges sat in the Second Chamber of the Civil Service Tribunal, which delivered the judgment under appeal.
  • Judgment of the General Court (Appeal Chamber) 23 January 2018 Judgment · Grade B
    It follows that, by using that list in order to fill the third vacant post, held by Judge Rofes i Pujol, the Council failed to have regard to the legal framework laid down by the public call for applications of 3 December 2013. It must be recalled that, according to the enacting terms and Recital 5 of Decision 2016/454, the Council appointed as judges of the Civil Service Tribunal, in the first place, Mr Van Raepenbusch, in the second place, Mr Sant’Anna and, in the third place, Mr Kornezov. Although the Council was entitled to draw from that list so far as concerns the first two appointments,
  • Judgment of the General Court (Appeal Chamber) 23 January 2018 Judgment · Grade B
    In that regard, it must be stated that it is apparent from Recitals 1 to 6 of Decision 2016/454, which are reproduced in paragraph 11 above, that the Council was fully aware that the list of candidates at issue had not been established with a view to appointing a judge to the post held by Ms Rofes i Pujol. It nevertheless decided to use the list for that purpose. It therefore follows from the appointment itself that the Council deliberately disregarded the legal framework laid down by the public call for applications of 3 December 2013 and the rules governing the appointment of judges to the C