Judgment of the Court C-272/20 P

Podcast

Play an AI-generated podcast conversation about this lesson

Questions and Answers

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?

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?

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?

It represented a loss of income of approximately 15%. Signup and view all the answers

What did the ECB argue regarding the appellant's appeal?

The appeal is unfounded and does not merit reconsideration. Signup and view all the answers

What is the primary reason the appellant cannot rely on the eleven and a half years of professional experience for salary considerations?

The calculation of salaries is solely at the ECB’s discretion. Signup and view all the answers

How does the situation of the appellant differ from that of the individual in the Samara case?

The appellant’s appointment was part of normal career progress. Signup and view all the answers

What principle does the appellant incorrectly claim should apply to his case?

Equal treatment of candidates in an open competition. Signup and view all the answers

What specific aspect of the administrative practice is being questioned by the appellant?

Criteria for determining salary classifications. Signup and view all the answers

What does the judgment of 15 January 1985, Samara v Commission focus on regarding career advancements?

Recognition of prior relevant experience in different roles. Signup and view all the answers

What must the pleas in law and legal arguments identify in an appeal under Article 169(2) of the Rules of Procedure?

The specific points contested in the General Court's decision Signup and view all the answers

Why are allegations of fact made by the appellant regarding his professional experience considered inadmissible at the appeal stage?

They constitute an assessment of fact outside the jurisdiction of the Court Signup and view all the answers

What does the appellant argue regarding his professional experience acquired with the Deutsche Bundesbank?

It is relevant to both the E/F and F/G salary bands Signup and view all the answers

What risk did the General Court identify regarding the application of consistent administrative practice for salary calculation?

The risk of double counting the same professional experience Signup and view all the answers

How is the concept of 'relevance' defined in the context of salary classification for new staff members?

It is determined by a consistent administrative practice Signup and view all the answers

What did the General Court conclude about the professional experience in the context of salary band classification?

It cannot be counted multiple times for different salary bands Signup and view all the answers

What does the appellant's argument about the court's treatment of his experience illustrate regarding appeal processes?

A misunderstanding of the appeal's factual assessment limitations Signup and view all the answers

What are appeals generally restricted from reassessing according to the information?

The facts presented in the original decision Signup and view all the answers

What was the primary argument made by the appellant regarding the status of EU officials and EU staff members?

The differences in status necessitate different legal treatments. Signup and view all the answers

Why did the appellant believe that the legal logic of Article 46 of the Staff Regulations was inappropriate for certain staff members?

It was created specifically for EU officials. Signup and view all the answers

What was the conclusion of the General Court regarding the comparability of different staff statuses?

There is significant difference between staff statuses. Signup and view all the answers

What did the appellant claim the General Court overlooked in its judgment?

The appellant's lengthy professional experience before his ECB role. Signup and view all the answers

According to the content, why was the appellant's argument considered without merit concerning internal versus external candidates?

Less favorable treatment based on experience is justified. Signup and view all the answers

What is implied about the nature of Article 52(2) of the Charter in relation to the appellant's case?

Economic considerations may not justify differential treatment. Signup and view all the answers

What aspect of the Staff Regulations was misapplied according to the appellant?

The treatment of EU staff members under the same rules as officials. Signup and view all the answers

What was the result of the appellant's promotion after two years of service?

It contradicted the arguments made by the General Court. Signup and view all the answers

What is the significance of professional experience acquired by internal candidates at the time of their recruitment?

It is recognized for both recruitment and promotion. Signup and view all the answers

According to the content, why is it not discriminatory to weigh external candidates' professional experience more heavily?

Internal candidates' experience has already been accounted for. Signup and view all the answers

What does Article 5(1) of Circular 2/2011 aim to ensure?

Continuity in the evolution of salary and career for staff. Signup and view all the answers

How did the General Court justify the difference in treatment between internal and external candidates?

By showing that the objective of the recruitment process supports this distinction. Signup and view all the answers

What has the professional experience of the appellant in the case been considered for?

Classification in the applicable salary band. Signup and view all the answers

What can be inferred about the treatment of internal candidates under the current rules?

Their previous experience is consistently valued. Signup and view all the answers

What was the resolution regarding the appellant's arguments in the appeal?

They were deemed irrelevant and without merit. Signup and view all the answers

Which statement accurately reflects the relationship between internal candidates' experience and salary progression?

Internal candidates' prior experience is preserved in salary progression. Signup and view all the answers

What is the concern raised by the appellant regarding the General Court's judgment?

The professional experience of the appellant is potentially counted twice. Signup and view all the answers

According to the judgment, what justifies the application of Article 32 of the Staff Regulations?

Absence of account being taken of professional experience. Signup and view all the answers

What does the General Court’s judgment state regarding internal candidates' professional experience?

It is taken into account to a lesser extent. Signup and view all the answers

What is one reason provided for justifying the different treatment of internal and external candidates?

Different objectives are pursued for each group. Signup and view all the answers

What is not considered a breach of the principle of equal treatment according to the judgment?

Higher classification for new staff based on a consistent administrative practice. Signup and view all the answers

Which principle is the appellant arguing has not been observed?

Principle of proportionality. Signup and view all the answers

What does the judgment imply about the classification step for new members of staff?

It can be influenced by the applicant's previous experience. Signup and view all the answers

What does the term 'consistent administrative practice' refer to in the context of salary calculations?

A standard approach in determining salaries based on experience. Signup and view all the answers

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.

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.