Podcast
Questions and Answers
What was the General Court’s conclusion regarding the contested decision in the judgment under appeal?
What was the General Court’s conclusion regarding the contested decision in the judgment under appeal?
- It was unjustified but proportionate.
- It was justified but not proportionate.
- It was both justified and proportionate. (correct)
- It was unjustified and not proportionate.
How was the appellant’s previous professional experience utilized in determining his salary step?
How was the appellant’s previous professional experience utilized in determining his salary step?
- It was converted to a salary step based on external candidate standards.
- It was accounted for extensively for internal candidates.
- It was converted into a salary step as per Article 5(1) of Circular 2/2011. (correct)
- It was ignored completely.
What discrepancy was noted in the treatment of internal versus external candidates regarding previous professional experience?
What discrepancy was noted in the treatment of internal versus external candidates regarding previous professional experience?
- Internal candidates were favored over external candidates.
- Only external candidates had their experience considered for salary determination.
- Internal candidates had their experience considered to a lesser extent. (correct)
- External candidates had their experience considered to a lesser extent.
What impact did the classification in the F/G salary band have on the appellant's income compared to that of an external candidate?
What impact did the classification in the F/G salary band have on the appellant's income compared to that of an external candidate?
What did the ECB argue regarding the appellant's appeal?
What did the ECB argue regarding the appellant's appeal?
What is the primary reason the appellant cannot rely on the eleven and a half years of professional experience for salary considerations?
What is the primary reason the appellant cannot rely on the eleven and a half years of professional experience for salary considerations?
How does the situation of the appellant differ from that of the individual in the Samara case?
How does the situation of the appellant differ from that of the individual in the Samara case?
What principle does the appellant incorrectly claim should apply to his case?
What principle does the appellant incorrectly claim should apply to his case?
What specific aspect of the administrative practice is being questioned by the appellant?
What specific aspect of the administrative practice is being questioned by the appellant?
What does the judgment of 15 January 1985, Samara v Commission focus on regarding career advancements?
What does the judgment of 15 January 1985, Samara v Commission focus on regarding career advancements?
What must the pleas in law and legal arguments identify in an appeal under Article 169(2) of the Rules of Procedure?
What must the pleas in law and legal arguments identify in an appeal under Article 169(2) of the Rules of Procedure?
Why are allegations of fact made by the appellant regarding his professional experience considered inadmissible at the appeal stage?
Why are allegations of fact made by the appellant regarding his professional experience considered inadmissible at the appeal stage?
What does the appellant argue regarding his professional experience acquired with the Deutsche Bundesbank?
What does the appellant argue regarding his professional experience acquired with the Deutsche Bundesbank?
What risk did the General Court identify regarding the application of consistent administrative practice for salary calculation?
What risk did the General Court identify regarding the application of consistent administrative practice for salary calculation?
How is the concept of 'relevance' defined in the context of salary classification for new staff members?
How is the concept of 'relevance' defined in the context of salary classification for new staff members?
What did the General Court conclude about the professional experience in the context of salary band classification?
What did the General Court conclude about the professional experience in the context of salary band classification?
What does the appellant's argument about the court's treatment of his experience illustrate regarding appeal processes?
What does the appellant's argument about the court's treatment of his experience illustrate regarding appeal processes?
What are appeals generally restricted from reassessing according to the information?
What are appeals generally restricted from reassessing according to the information?
What was the primary argument made by the appellant regarding the status of EU officials and EU staff members?
What was the primary argument made by the appellant regarding the status of EU officials and EU staff members?
Why did the appellant believe that the legal logic of Article 46 of the Staff Regulations was inappropriate for certain staff members?
Why did the appellant believe that the legal logic of Article 46 of the Staff Regulations was inappropriate for certain staff members?
What was the conclusion of the General Court regarding the comparability of different staff statuses?
What was the conclusion of the General Court regarding the comparability of different staff statuses?
What did the appellant claim the General Court overlooked in its judgment?
What did the appellant claim the General Court overlooked in its judgment?
According to the content, why was the appellant's argument considered without merit concerning internal versus external candidates?
According to the content, why was the appellant's argument considered without merit concerning internal versus external candidates?
What is implied about the nature of Article 52(2) of the Charter in relation to the appellant's case?
What is implied about the nature of Article 52(2) of the Charter in relation to the appellant's case?
What aspect of the Staff Regulations was misapplied according to the appellant?
What aspect of the Staff Regulations was misapplied according to the appellant?
What was the result of the appellant's promotion after two years of service?
What was the result of the appellant's promotion after two years of service?
What is the significance of professional experience acquired by internal candidates at the time of their recruitment?
What is the significance of professional experience acquired by internal candidates at the time of their recruitment?
According to the content, why is it not discriminatory to weigh external candidates' professional experience more heavily?
According to the content, why is it not discriminatory to weigh external candidates' professional experience more heavily?
What does Article 5(1) of Circular 2/2011 aim to ensure?
What does Article 5(1) of Circular 2/2011 aim to ensure?
How did the General Court justify the difference in treatment between internal and external candidates?
How did the General Court justify the difference in treatment between internal and external candidates?
What has the professional experience of the appellant in the case been considered for?
What has the professional experience of the appellant in the case been considered for?
What can be inferred about the treatment of internal candidates under the current rules?
What can be inferred about the treatment of internal candidates under the current rules?
What was the resolution regarding the appellant's arguments in the appeal?
What was the resolution regarding the appellant's arguments in the appeal?
Which statement accurately reflects the relationship between internal candidates' experience and salary progression?
Which statement accurately reflects the relationship between internal candidates' experience and salary progression?
What is the concern raised by the appellant regarding the General Court's judgment?
What is the concern raised by the appellant regarding the General Court's judgment?
According to the judgment, what justifies the application of Article 32 of the Staff Regulations?
According to the judgment, what justifies the application of Article 32 of the Staff Regulations?
What does the General Court’s judgment state regarding internal candidates' professional experience?
What does the General Court’s judgment state regarding internal candidates' professional experience?
What is one reason provided for justifying the different treatment of internal and external candidates?
What is one reason provided for justifying the different treatment of internal and external candidates?
What is not considered a breach of the principle of equal treatment according to the judgment?
What is not considered a breach of the principle of equal treatment according to the judgment?
Which principle is the appellant arguing has not been observed?
Which principle is the appellant arguing has not been observed?
What does the judgment imply about the classification step for new members of staff?
What does the judgment imply about the classification step for new members of staff?
What does the term 'consistent administrative practice' refer to in the context of salary calculations?
What does the term 'consistent administrative practice' refer to in the context of salary calculations?
Flashcards
Article 169(2) Rule of Procedure
Article 169(2) Rule of Procedure
Court rule requiring precise identification of contested points in a decision's grounds.
Inadmissible Appeal Argument (Fact)
Inadmissible Appeal Argument (Fact)
Allegations of fact presented at the appeal stage that are not permitted.
Relevant Professional Experience
Relevant Professional Experience
Experience considered important in assessing a person's suitability or salary.
Consistent Administrative Practice
Consistent Administrative Practice
Signup and view all the flashcards
Assessment of Fact (Appeal)
Assessment of Fact (Appeal)
Signup and view all the flashcards
General Court Disregard
General Court Disregard
Signup and view all the flashcards
Double Counting of Experience
Double Counting of Experience
Signup and view all the flashcards
Appeal Stage
Appeal Stage
Signup and view all the flashcards
Comparability of Article 32 and practice
Comparability of Article 32 and practice
Signup and view all the flashcards
EU official status vs. staff member
EU official status vs. staff member
Signup and view all the flashcards
Article 46 Staff Regulations
Article 46 Staff Regulations
Signup and view all the flashcards
Economic consideration for staff
Economic consideration for staff
Signup and view all the flashcards
Justification of Article 52(2) Charter
Justification of Article 52(2) Charter
Signup and view all the flashcards
Non-comparable staff situations
Non-comparable staff situations
Signup and view all the flashcards
Disregarded professional experience
Disregarded professional experience
Signup and view all the flashcards
Promotion after short tenure
Promotion after short tenure
Signup and view all the flashcards
Proportionality Principle
Proportionality Principle
Signup and view all the flashcards
Unfavorable Treatment
Unfavorable Treatment
Signup and view all the flashcards
Continuity of Career Progression
Continuity of Career Progression
Signup and view all the flashcards
Salary Band
Salary Band
Signup and view all the flashcards
External Candidate
External Candidate
Signup and view all the flashcards
Continuity in Salary Progression
Continuity in Salary Progression
Signup and view all the flashcards
Professional Experience
Professional Experience
Signup and view all the flashcards
Discrimination (in this context)
Discrimination (in this context)
Signup and view all the flashcards
Recruitment Rules
Recruitment Rules
Signup and view all the flashcards
Salary Band (F/G)
Salary Band (F/G)
Signup and view all the flashcards
Objective of Article 5(1) Circular 2/2011
Objective of Article 5(1) Circular 2/2011
Signup and view all the flashcards
Samara v Commission
Samara v Commission
Signup and view all the flashcards
Relevant Experience
Relevant Experience
Signup and view all the flashcards
Career Progress
Career Progress
Signup and view all the flashcards
Double Counting
Double Counting
Signup and view all the flashcards
Equal Treatment Principle
Equal Treatment Principle
Signup and view all the flashcards
Article 32 of the Staff Regulations
Article 32 of the Staff Regulations
Signup and view all the flashcards
Internal vs. External Candidates
Internal vs. External Candidates
Signup and view all the flashcards
Different Objectives
Different Objectives
Signup and view all the flashcards
Study Notes
Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber)
- Date: 6 October 2021
- Case: C-272/20 P
- Subject: Civil service, European Central Bank (ECB) staff members, remuneration, competitions, equality of treatment between internal and external candidates, classification in step
- Appellant: Sebastian Veit
- Defendant: European Central Bank (ECB)
- Background: Veit was employed by the ECB as a supervision analyst from October 2015 to September 2018. His contract was initially fixed-term, but potentially convertible to indefinite. He was initially classified in the E/F salary band. He was later temporarily promoted to a higher salary band (F/G) and a higher classification (step 17). He applied for a supervisor position within the ECB, which was awarded to him. He was classified at step 17 of the F/G salary band. He challenged the classification. Subsequent complaints and appeals were also rejected.
- Appeal Focus: Veit appealed a General Court ruling that rejected his claims based on EU law. He challenged the ECB's 2018 decision(s) classifying him in step 17 of the F/G salary band and a 2018 decision rejecting his complaint.
Judgment Summary
- Admissibility: The ECB argued the appeal was inadmissible.
- General Court Argument: The General Court stated that internal and external candidates were in comparable situations, a principle found supported by specific administrative practices related to salary calculations.
- Court Conclusion: The Court supported the General Court by finding that Veit's complaint was unsupported and that the differences in treatment were justified and proportionate. The appeal was dismissed. Veit was ordered to pay costs.
Studying That Suits You
Use AI to generate personalized quizzes and flashcards to suit your learning preferences.
Related Documents
Description
This quiz examines the case C-272/20 P involving the European Central Bank and appellant Sebastian Veit. It focuses on issues of remuneration, classifications in salary bands, and equality of treatment between candidates. Test your knowledge of the court's ruling and its implications for civil service employment.