ECLI:EU:T:2026:673

Texto completo

JUDGMENT OF THE GENERAL COURT (Tenth Chamber)

14 October 2026 (*)

( Civil service – Staff of the SRB – Members of the temporary staff – Probationary period – Internal reorganisation of the SRB’s services – Dismissal decision at the end of the probationary period – Manifest error of assessment – Liability )

In Case T‑537/24,

GC, represented by A. Guillerme and L. Marchal, lawyers,

applicant,

Single Resolution Board (SRB), represented by H. Ehlers, L. Forestier and I. Taleb, acting as Agents, and by D. Waelbroeck and A. Duron, lawyers,

defendant,

THE GENERAL COURT (Tenth Chamber),

composed of S.L. Kalėda, President, H. Kanninen and T. Perišin (Rapporteur), Judges,

Registrar: A. Marghelis, Administrator,

having regard to the written part of the procedure,

further to the hearing on 3 December 2025,

gives the following

Judgment

1 By his action under Article 270 TFEU, the applicant, GC, seeks, first, annulment of the decision of the Single Resolution Board (SRB) of 14 December 2023 to dismiss him at the end of his probationary period (‘the contested decision’) and, second, compensation for the damage which he claims to have suffered.

I. Background to the dispute

2 On 27 June 2021, the applicant applied for the post of bank resolution expert (AD 5) within the SRB and was placed on reserve list SRB/AD/2021/007.

3 On 13 December 2022, after consulting reserve list SRB/AD/2021/007, the SRB invited the applicant to an interview for the post of governance expert in its secretariat and sent him an offer of employment for that post. The applicant accepted that offer on 16 January 2023.

4 In March 2023, the SRB underwent an internal reorganisation during which the title of the post to be occupied by the applicant became ‘legal expert’.

5 On 1 April 2023, the applicant took up his duties as a member of the temporary staff (AD 5) on the basis of Article 2(f) of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union (‘the CEOS’) for a period of three years. On taking up his duties, he was subject to a nine-month probationary period, expiring on 31 December 2023.

6 On 4 May 2023, the head of the SRB Secretariat met with the applicant. Then, on 7 and 8 June 2023, she formally approved the applicant’s objectives, which were encoded in his personal file in the European Commission’s human resource management information system, ‘Sysper 2’.

7 On 8 and 30 June and 19 July 2023, the applicant and the Head of the SRB Secretariat held bilateral meetings and, on 30 July 2023, the latter provided, by email sent to the applicant, written feedback on his performance.

8 On 1 August 2023, the SRB’s human resources department invited the applicant to attend a mid-term probationary dialogue after completing four months of service, scheduled for 10 August 2023.

9 On 9 August 2023, the applicant expressed his disagreement in writing with the feedback provided in the email from the Head of the SRB Secretariat of 30 July 2023.

10 On 10 August 2023, the Head of the SRB Secretariat postponed the mid-term probationary dialogue to 22 August 2023. Subsequently, the applicant requested on three occasions that that dialogue be postponed.

11 On 25 August 2023, the applicant sent a request for internal transfer in the interest of the service, which was rejected by the Chair of the SRB on 21 September 2023.

12 On 6 September 2023, the applicant informed the SRB that he was on sick leave, which was then extended until 31 December 2023.

13 On 14 September 2023, the Head of the SRB Secretariat completed and signed the mid-term probationary report (‘the mid-term probationary report’) and informed the applicant thereof on the same day. The applicant submitted his written comments on 24 October 2023, claiming that his work had been assessed on the basis of the requirements applicable to a post of legal expert, even though he had been recruited to occupy a post as governance expert.

14 On 22 September 2023, the applicant initiated an informal harassment procedure against the Head of the SRB Secretariat under the SRB Policy on protecting the dignity of the person and preventing psychological harassment and sexual harassment. He requested that an emergency measure consisting of an internal transfer be applied.

15 On 12 October 2023, the SRB’s human resources department sent the applicant a notification requesting that he complete a self-assessment for the mid-term probationary report, in accordance with Article 14 of the CEOS. The applicant completed that self-assessment on 6 November 2023.

16 On 7 November 2023, the applicant attended a virtual meeting with the Chair of the SRB. During that meeting, he explained to the Chair the reasons for his request for an internal transfer. Following that meeting, the Chair of the SRB offered him the possibility of teleworking full-time on his return from sick leave.

17 On 13 November 2023, a dialogue relating to the probationary period took place between the Head of the SRB Secretariat and the applicant. Following that dialogue, the Head of Secretariat drew up the probationary report (‘the final probationary report’), in which she stated that the applicant’s performance, skills and conduct in the service were unsatisfactory and recommended that he be dismissed at the end of that period.

18 On 28 November 2023, the applicant submitted his comments on the final probationary report. In his comments, he requested that the Chair of the SRB confirm his ‘appointment’, extend his probationary period for the time he had remained absent and transfer him internally by reassigning him to another unit of the SRB.

19 On 1 December 2023, the applicant sent the Chair of the SRB a formal request for assistance under Article 24 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union (‘the Staff Regulations’), alleging psychological harassment on the part of the Head of the SRB Secretariat. On 2 April 2024, the Chair of the SRB decided to reject that request for assistance. The complaint against that decision was, in turn, rejected on 24 October 2024.

20 On 11 December 2023, the applicant attended a hearing with the Chair of the SRB.

21 By the contested decision, the Chair of the SRB decided to dismiss the applicant at the end of his probationary period, in accordance with the recommendation for dismissal set out in the final probationary report, as provided for in Article 14 of the CEOS. He also informed the applicant that he had decided not to extend that period, which, consequently, rendered the request for internal transfer devoid of purpose.

22 On 14 March 2024, the applicant lodged a complaint under Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations against the contested decision and the final probationary report.

23 On 8 July 2024, the Chair of the SRB rejected that complaint (‘the decision rejecting the complaint’).

II. Forms of order sought

24 The applicant claims that the Court should:

– annul the contested decision;

– order the SRB to pay him, by way of compensation for material damage, an amount set at EUR 194 183.19;

– order the SRB to pay him, by way of compensation for non-material damage, an amount set ex aequo et bono at EUR 15 000;

– order the SRB to pay the costs.

25 The SRB contends that the Court should:

– dismiss the action;

– order the applicant to pay the costs.

III. Law

A. Subject matter of the dispute

26 Even though, in the context of the present action, the claims for annulment submitted by the applicant relate only to the contested decision, it should be noted that, by the decision rejecting the complaint, the SRB supplemented the statement of reasons for the contested decision, in particular by responding to the complaints that the applicant had put forward in his complaint. Thus, in view of the evolving nature of the pre-litigation procedure, the reasoning contained in the decision rejecting the complaint must also be taken into account in the assessment of the original act giving rise to the claim, namely the contested decision, as that reasoning is deemed to be the same as that of the contested decision (see judgment of 23 September 2020, UE v Commission, T‑338/19, EU:T:2020:430, paragraph 35 and the case-law cited).

B. Substance

1. The claim for annulment

27 The applicant raises four pleas in law, alleging (i) a manifest error of assessment in the appraisal of his work, skills and conduct, (ii) infringement of the procedural rules regarding the establishment of the final probationary report, (iii) infringement of Article 12a of the Staff Regulations and (iv) breach of the duty to have regard for the welfare of staff.

28 The first plea is divided, in essence, into two parts, alleging, first, a manifest error of assessment in appraising the applicant’s work, given that the appraisal was carried out in the light of requirements relating to a post other than that for which he had been recruited and, second, a manifest error of assessment in the appraisal of his abilities and conduct.

29 In the first part of the first plea, the applicant claims that the SRB made a manifest error of assessment in assessing his work in the light of the title and description of a post corresponding to that of legal expert, even though he had been recruited as a governance expert.

30 First, the applicant claims that the change to his conditions of employment, the title and description of his post in particular, occurred after his recruitment, that it was not communicated to him in advance and he was not formally notified of it, and that he was not consulted in that regard. He states that, at the meeting held on his first working day, on 3 April 2023, the human resources department explained to him that his post corresponded to that of a governance expert and that, at the meeting of 4 May 2023 (see paragraph 6 above), he was not informed of the changes concerning that post.

31 In addition, the applicant states that he received no notification when he took up his duties that the title and description of his post had been changed in his file in Sysper 2. He observes that, during the probationary period, he always signed his emails as a governance expert and that he never received a request to change his signature.

32 The applicant adds that the title of his post in the mid-term probationary report was ‘legal expert’, whereas that post in the letter of offer of employment was entitled ‘governance expert’.

33 Second, the applicant claims that the change in the title of his post led to a material change in his duties, since the functions of governance expert and legal expert call for different tasks to be carried out and involve different skills.

34 The applicant states that the duties of legal expert involve carrying out legal research and analysis. By contrast, governance experts focus on governance-related advice and do not require legal knowledge. In that regard, he submits that, despite this, the Head of the SRB Secretariat assigned him legal tasks and assessed, incorrectly, his performance on the basis of his legal knowledge.

35 Third, the applicant claims that the SRB never offered him the training necessary to carry out the duties of legal expert which were ultimately assigned to him and which do not correspond to the description of the post of governance expert. In so doing, the SRB failed to fulfil its obligation to enable him to carry out those duties. He states, moreover, that he has extensive experience as a governance expert, but that he has not worked as a legal expert in the past 10 years.

36 The SRB disputes the applicant’s arguments.

37 First, the SRB notes that the description of the applicant’s post had been made available in his personal file in Sysper 2 when he took up his duties. It adds that the applicant’s arguments relating to the discussions which took place at the meetings of 3 April and 4 May 2023 are not supported by any evidence. It also states that, during the internal reorganisation of March 2023, the title of the post to be occupied by the applicant had been amended in order to align it with the job titles of the other experts of the governance team of the SRB Secretariat.

38 Second, the SRB submits that the change to the title of the applicant’s post to ‘legal expert’ did not entail any change to his role or duties, since the job description and the tasks to be carried out did not differ. It maintains that the same results were expected of the applicant, whether as a governance expert or as a legal expert, within the governance team of the SRB Secretariat.

39 Third, the SRB states that the applicant received the necessary training to carry out the tasks he was to perform in the context of a course given by the senior coordinator for governance matters and by reading the internal rules of procedure. It adds that the applicant had the opportunity to train in the use of the applications necessary to carry out his daily tasks.

40 It follows from Articles 1 and 2 and from Title II of the CEOS, entitled ‘Temporary Staff’, that relations between members of the temporary staff and their employers are, in principle, governed by individual contracts of employment, the content of which is subject, in general, to compliance with the conditions laid down in the CEOS. Those contracts determine, in particular, the classification of the member of the temporary staff and the corresponding basic salary, the start date and the duration of that contract, the period of notice and other conditions of employment.

41 Article 14(3) of the CEOS provides:

‘One month at the latest before the expiry of the probationary period, a report shall be made on the ability of the member of the temporary staff to perform the duties pertaining to his post and also on his efficiency and conduct in the service. That report shall be communicated to the member of the temporary staff, who shall have the right to submit his comments in writing within eight working days.

Should it recommend dismissal or, in exceptional circumstances, extension of the probationary period in accordance with paragraph 1 [of the present article], the report and the comments shall be transmitted immediately by the immediate superior of the member of the temporary staff to the authority referred to in the first paragraph of Article 6 [of the CEOS].

A member of the temporary staff whose work or conduct has not proved adequate for establishment in his post shall be dismissed.

The final decision shall be taken on the basis of the report referred to in this paragraph as well as on the basis of elements available to the authority referred to in the first paragraph of Article 6 [of the CEOS] relating to the conduct of the member of the temporary staff with regard to Title II of the Staff Regulations.’

42 It should also be borne in mind that the administration has a wide discretion when it comes to assessing the abilities and performance of probationary staff members in accordance with the interest of the service. Accordingly, it is not for the Court to substitute its own judgment for that of the institutions in so far as concerns the outcome of a probationary period and the suitability of a candidate for confirmation of contract in the European Union civil service, its review being confined to establishing that there has been no manifest error of assessment or misuse of powers (see judgment of 7 July 2021, ID v EEAS, T‑28/20, not published, EU:T:2021:416, paragraph 119 and the case-law cited).

43 Furthermore, an error may be classified as manifest only where it is easily recognisable and can be readily detected, in the light of the criteria to which the EU legislature intended the administration’s exercise of its discretion to be subject. In order to establish that the administration has made a manifest error in assessing the facts, of such a kind as to justify the annulment of a decision taken on the basis of that assessment, the evidence, which it is for the applicant to adduce, must be sufficient to make the findings of the administration implausible. In other words, a plea based on manifest error must be rejected if, despite the evidence produced by the applicant, the assessment in question can still be regarded as justified and coherent (see judgment of 12 October 2022, Van Walle v ECDC, T‑83/21, not published, EU:T:2022:626, paragraph 34 and the case-law cited).

44 The Court observes that the SRB referred, in its reasons given for the applicant’s dismissal at the end of his probationary period in the contested decision, to the final probationary report and to the observations of 28 November 2023 submitted by the applicant. The applicant’s arguments must, accordingly, be assessed in the light of those elements.

(a) Communication of the change to the applicant’s conditions of employment

45 The applicant complains, in essence, that the SRB assessed his work in the mid-term probationary report in the light of the title and description of a post corresponding to that of a legal expert, even though he had been recruited to occupy a post as a governance expert, as stated in the job offer, without even having informed him of the change in the title and description of his post.

46 As a preliminary point, it is necessary to reject the argument relied on by the SRB at the hearing, according to which the applicant’s allegation that he was not informed about the change to the description and title of his post was inadmissible on the ground that he had not challenged the act relating to the change to his post.

47 The applicant’s present complaint relates to the assessment of his work in the light of the title and description of a post corresponding to that of a legal expert, even though he had been recruited to occupy a post as a governance expert and was not informed of that change, and does not relate to the change per se.

48 As regards the merits of the present complaint, it should be noted, in the first place, that the SRB acknowledges that it did not inform the applicant of the change in the title and description of the post referred to in the offer of employment by means other than the insertion, on 1 April 2023, of the words ‘legal expert’ as the title of that post in Sysper 2. At the hearing, the SRB confirmed that it had never sent an email or any other type of notification to the applicant to inform him of such a change after the applicant had accepted that offer of employment.

49 In the second place, the SRB claims that, from the applicant’s first working day, the post of legal expert was stated in his personal file in Sysper 2.

50 At the hearing, the SRB stated that it had not considered it necessary to inform the applicant that he had to consult his personal file in Sysper 2 in order to know or understand the ‘conditions governing his post’.

51 In addition, the SRB submits that, in so far as it is apparent from an email from the Commission of 11 November 2025 that the applicant logged in to Sysper 2 and consulted the description of his post and his objectives on 25 April, 30 May and 8 June 2023, he could not have been unaware that his post was that of a legal expert.

52 The applicant replies that the email from the Commission of 11 November 2025, stating that he had logged in to Sysper 2 and had consulted the description of his post and his objectives without any extract showing his browsing history being attached to it, cannot constitute valid proof of the notification of the change to the title of that post.

53 In that regard, it is apparent from the file that the change to the title and description of the applicant’s post results from the internal reorganisation of the SRB, which took place in March 2023, that the applicant had accepted the offer of employment for a post of governance expert on 16 January 2023, that is to say, before that internal reorganisation, and that he began working on 1 April 2023, that is to say, after that internal reorganisation, as set out in paragraphs 3 to 5 above.

54 In addition, it should be noted that the SRB produces an email from the Commission of 11 November 2025 in its reply to a question from the Court, put in the context of a measure of organisation of procedure, but does not adduce evidence to support the assertion in that email that the applicant consulted the description of his post on three occasions between April and June 2023. Specifically, there is no evidence to establish that the applicant specifically consulted the description of his post and his objectives in his personal file in Sysper 2.

55 In the third place, as regards the applicant’s argument that the post of legal expert in view of which his work was assessed in the mid-term probationary report does not correspond to the post referred to in the offer of employment, that report states that the description of the applicant’s job is available in Sysper 2, that the job environment is clear and that the tasks were discussed and agreed upon. However, in his observations on that report, the applicant challenged his tasks and the title of his post, on the ground that they did not correspond to the title and description of the post which had been communicated to him at the time of his recruitment.

56 In that regard, the SRB stated, at the hearing, that it had not followed up on the applicant’s observations on the interim probation report by which he disputed his tasks and the title of his post.

57 It follows from the foregoing that the SRB has not shown that the applicant had been informed in good time of the change to the conditions of employment.

(b) The material nature of the change to the applicant’s conditions of employment and the appraisal based on the post of legal expert

58 The applicant complains, in essence, that the SRB assessed his work in the mid-term probationary report in the light of the title and description of a post corresponding to that of a legal expert, which required different skills from the post of governance expert referred to in the job offer.

59 According to case-law, the contract of employment denotes the legal instrument embodying an employment relationship between a member of staff, on the one hand, and the EU administration, on the other. More specifically, the Court has held that a material change in the duties performed by the member of staff was such as to affect the functional continuity of his or her employment relationship with the EU administration (see, to that effect, judgment of 16 September 2015, EMA v Drakeford, T‑231/14 P, EU:T:2015:639, paragraph 40).

60 In that regard, in the first place, it is necessary to determine whether, in the present case, the change to the duties to be performed by the applicant may be classified as ‘material’ by comparing the characteristics of the post of governance expert and the post of legal expert, in the light of which the applicant’s work was assessed in the mid-term probationary report, in particular as regards the descriptions of those posts, the tasks to be carried out, the duties to be performed and the prior training required.

61 First, as regards the descriptions of the posts of governance expert and legal expert, the following points should be made.

62 At the time of the applicant’s recruitment, the post of governance expert, offered to the applicant, was described as follows:

‘The Governance Expert will be part of the Board Governance Team. Tasks will primarily be related to coordinating, designing and advising on board governance and decision-making processes, including Rules of Procedures, the resolution planning cycle, crisis management work and Single Resolution Fund matters. The work of the Secretariat is dynamic, [which is] why the Governance Expert may be requested to work on tasks related to, for instance, document management, business continuity, internal controls and audits, and organisational risk assessments.

…

Tasks:

– Prepare, execute and [follow up] on SRB board meetings and SRB written procedures;

– Provide advice to the organisation and relevant external stakeholders such as [national resolution authorities] on the relevant Rules of Procedure, Decisions and other formal requirements that govern the tasks and responsibilities of the SRB, in particular, as regards board meetings, resolution planning, crisis cases as well as the Single Resolution Fund;

– Coordinate and design relevant SRB policies, business processes and supporting documents such as cover note templates within the scope of the SRB Secretariat, including the SRB Internal Rules of Procedure;

– Maintain a corporate overview and repository of all statutory records of the SRB, such as Chair Decisions, using relevant IT applications, and ensure compliance with relevant rules;

– Assist the Head of Secretariat in preparing analysis and recommendations for the SRB’s decision-making bodies and executive leadership on topics within the remit of the SRB Secretariat;

– Assist the Head of Secretariat in coordinating relevant business projects run by, or with the participation of, the SRB Secretariat. This may include projects related to [onboarding] of new board members, development of IT applications, or policies or business processes with an impact on SRB governance and decision-making;

– Cooperate closely with counterparts in relevant EU Institutions on governance or other relevant matters;

– Cooperate closely with bank resolution, legal, policy or other experts in the SRB;

– Carry out any other tasks requested by line management in the interest of the service.’

63 The post of legal expert, ultimately assigned to the applicant, was described as follows:

‘The jobholder provides legal advice to SRB’s management and colleagues with a practical, service-oriented approach and will be involved in the preparation of relevant documents and draft decisions for the SRB’s [decision-making] bodies. She/he works closely with other legal experts in the SRB or, under certain conditions, with external legal advisors/counsels. Where appropriate, she/he works under the guidance of more experienced team members.

…

Functions and duties:

Legal analysis, advice and assistance

– Conducting extensive legal research and providing legal advice on the interpretation of relevant legislation in respect of all tasks and responsibilities of the SRB, in particular, as regards resolution planning, resolution cases as well as [the] Single Resolution Fund;

– Providing advice on matters involving the SRB’s constitution and governance structure;

– Preparing notes, memos and dossiers for the SRB’s decision-making bodies and management;

– Contributing to the development of proposals for draft decisions of the SRB and facilitating the decision-making process, including advising on the legal basis for decision making and ensuring proper follow-up;

– Cooperating closely with experts and counterparts in EU Institutions … National Resolution Authorities and other stakeholders as well as establishing and maintaining the contacts with external legal counsels;

– Close collaboration with legal experts in the SRB as well as performing any other duties as required by line management in the interest of the SRB.’

64 In the vacancy notice published in 2022, the post of governance expert in the SRB Secretariat was described as follows:

‘[Governance expert tasks] will primarily be related to coordinating, designing and advising on board governance and decision-making processes, including Rules of Procedures, the resolution planning cycle, crisis management work and Single Resolution Fund matters. … the Governance Expert may be requested to work on tasks related to, for instance, document management, business continuity, internal controls and audits, and organisational risk assessments.

…

Tasks:

– Prepare, execute and [follow up] on SRB board meetings and SRB written procedures;

– Maintain a corporate overview and repository of all statutory records of the SRB, such as Chair Decisions, using relevant IT applications, and ensure compliance with relevant rules;

– Assist the Head of Secretariat in preparing analysis and recommendations for the SRB’s decision-making bodies and executive leadership on topics within the remit of the SRB Secretariat;

– Cooperate closely with counterparts in relevant EU Institutions on governance or other relevant matters;

– Cooperate closely with bank resolution, legal, policy or other experts in the SRB;

– Carry out any other tasks requested by line management in the interest of the service.’

65 In the vacancy notice published in 2019, the post of legal expert in the SRB Secretariat was described as follows:

‘The Legal Expert … will focus on providing legal expertise in [that unit]. The Unit provides legal and secretariat support on the tasks and responsibilities assigned to the SRB. While the Legal Team provides … horizontal legal advice on the core responsibilities of the SRB, the SRB Secretariat is responsible for sound decision-making and supports the Board in all its formations. In particular, the SRB Secretariat provides guidance within the organisation and directly to the Board on the [decision-making] process and governance-related aspects and maintains close contacts with the [national resolution authorities] and other EU institutions and bodies involved in the decision-making.

Moreover, the Legal Expert will contribute to handling of requests for access to documents under the SRB’s public access regime and will assist in preparing legal advice on matters related to the HR and procurement files.

Tasks:

…

– Prepare and follow-up the Board’s decision-making processes by contributing to the review of all relevant documentation submitted to the Board …;

– Plan the [forward-looking] agenda for the Board meetings in cooperation with other business areas of the SRB;

– Draft internal governance documents, memos and management notes to the Board, as well as horizontal guidance to the SRB’s business areas on decision making and SRB governance aspects;

– Provide legal advice on issues stemming from the SRB draft decisions and policies and other activities of the organisation;

– Day-to-day interaction and advice vis-à-vis the SRB’s business areas, including close collaboration with other Legal Experts within [the unit];

– Assist in the planning of the resolution cycles; provide content analysis of the [resolution-related] decisions and, in particular, the resolution plans;

– Participate in the work of various internal bodies and committees and contribute to their work; and

– Create, develop and implement internal processes, including formal consultations with internal … and external … stakeholders to enhance horizontal consistency.

…

– Conduct assessments of requests for access to documents and draft responses;

– Follow the case-law of the CJEU in access to documents cases and report on most recent developments;

– Contribute to the preparation and review of internal policies and other documents in relation to the access to documents regime;

– Assist in the preparation of legal advice on HR and Procurement related issues;

– Carry out any other tasks requested by line management in the interest of the service.’

66 It is apparent from the description of the post offered, from the description of the post ultimately assigned to the applicant and from the vacancy notices, set out in paragraphs 62 to 65 above, that the governance expert is required to carry out tasks relating to ‘coordinating, designing and advising on board governance and decision-making processes’, whereas the legal expert ‘provides legal advice to [the] SRB’, and ‘provides legal and secretariat support on the tasks and responsibilities assigned to the SRB’. In addition, the functions of a legal expert primarily involve the performance of tasks involving legal aspects, including ‘extensive legal research’, ‘legal advice’, ‘legal analysis’, and ‘advising on the legal basis for decision making’. The functions of a governance expert focus on advice related to governance, provision of guidance on organisational structure and institutional matters, including ‘prepar[ing], execut[ing] and follow[ing up] on SRB board meetings’, ‘coordinat[ing] and design[ing] relevant SRB policies, business processes and supporting documents’, as well as ‘assist[ing] the Head of Secretariat in preparing analysis’ and ‘coordinating relevant business projects’. It should also be noted that the tasks of a governance expert do not include legal tasks. Thus, it follows that the description of those posts and the tasks associated with them are different in nature.

67 Second, as regards the qualifications necessary to occupy the posts of governance expert and legal expert, it is apparent from the vacancy notices relating to the post of governance expert in the SRB Secretariat, published in 2022, that the qualifications considered relevant to occupy a post were ‘legal, economic, political science or another relevant educational background’. By contrast, according to the vacancy notice for the post of legal expert in the SRB Secretariat, published in 2019, the post of legal expert required the completion of ‘university studies of at least three (3) years attested by a diploma in law’.

68 Thus, for the post of governance expert, legal qualifications were not necessary, since that post was also open to candidates with other qualifications, whereas legal qualifications were a necessary condition for the post of legal expert.

69 In those circumstances, it is clear that the post of governance expert and legal expert are materially different, that they require different skills and that they involve the performance of different tasks. It follows that the change in the title and description of the applicant’s post after his recruitment constituted a material change in the duties to be performed by him within the meaning of the case-law referred to in paragraph 59 above.

70 The fact that the applicant held a law degree and that, consequently, he satisfied the condition of having completed university studies of at least three years attested by a diploma in law, set out as a requirement to occupy the post of legal expert, is irrelevant in that regard.

71 In the second place, as regards the assessment of the applicant’s performance on the basis of the requirements for the post of legal expert, the final probationary report states that ‘[the applicant’s] inputs on different files were often insufficient and/or unclear, or sometimes incorrect in legal/procedural analysis’, that ‘[the applicant] has not demonstrated his critical analysis, which is important when revising the documentation/decisions from a legal and procedural angle and which would assist the other experts to complete the assigned work’ and that, ‘while [the applicant] slightly was advancing in his understanding of the legal and procedural framework applicable to the SRB and those needed in … day-to-day assignments [of the Secretariat], this progress was very slow, inconsistent and ultimately insufficient’.

72 It follows that the applicant’s performance was assessed in particular on the basis of the requirements required for a post materially different from the post for which the applicant had been recruited.

73 The applicant claims that the SRB did not provide him with the necessary training to perform the duties of legal expert. He states that he had not worked as a lawyer for 10 years and did not have the necessary skills to carry out that work.

74 According to case-law, as regards a decision to dismiss at the end of a probationary period, such a decision must be annulled if the applicant has not been allowed to complete his or her probationary period under normal conditions. More specifically, although the probationary period, which is designed to enable the probationer’s abilities and conduct to be assessed, cannot be assimilated to a training period, it is still imperative that the probationer be given the opportunity, during this period, to demonstrate his or her qualities. That requirement means in practice that the probationer must be given appropriate instructions and advice in order to enable him or her to adapt to the specific needs of the post which he or she occupies. Lastly, the required level of those instructions and advice must be assessed not in the abstract, but in practical terms, taking account of the type of duties performed. From that point of view the probationer’s previous experience cannot be ignored. While that experience cannot, as such, call into question the usefulness of the probationary period, which is designed to enable the probationer’s abilities and conduct to be assessed, as set out above, it may determine the level of supervision he or she should be given in order for the purpose of the probationary period to be fulfilled (see judgment of 25 October 2018, DI v EASO, T‑129/17 RENV, not published, EU:T:2018:722, paragraph 76 and the case-law cited).

75 It is apparent from the file that the applicant received training provided by the senior coordinator for governance matters and that he worked under the supervision of members of the SRB Secretariat in order to facilitate his entry into service.

76 In the light of the fact that, as is apparent from the performance assessment in the final probationary report, the applicant did not have the necessary legal knowledge to carry out the tasks of legal expert, as referred to in paragraph 71 above, and had not carried out the duties of legal expert during the previous 10 years, the SRB has not shown that the applicant had received the necessary training or instructions to enable him to perform the tasks of legal expert.

77 It follows from all of the foregoing that, by not having informed the applicant in good time of the change to his conditions of employment after his recruitment, in view of the material nature of the change in the duties to be performed by him and of the fact that, during his probationary period, he did not receive the necessary training or instructions to enable him to perform the duties of legal expert, the SRB did not give the applicant the opportunity to complete his probationary period under normal conditions. Accordingly, the contested decision, by which the SRB assessed the applicant’s work in the light of the title and description of a post corresponding to that of a legal expert, whereas he had been recruited to occupy a post in order to perform the duties of a governance expert, is vitiated by a manifest error of assessment and must be annulled.

78 Accordingly, the first part of the first plea must be upheld and, consequently, the contested decision must be annulled, without there being any need to rule on the second part of the first plea, alleging manifest error of assessment in the assessment of the applicant’s skills and conduct, or on the other pleas raised by the applicant.

2. The claim for compensation

(a) Admissibility of the claim for compensation

79 In its pleadings, the SRB raises a plea of inadmissibility alleging that the claim for compensation relating to the non-material damage suffered by the applicant as a result of psychological harassment on the part of the Head of the SRB Secretariat is inadmissible.

80 The SRB states that the applicant’s allegations of psychological harassment are subject to separate means of redress and that, consequently, compensation for non-material damage resulting from such harassment cannot be claimed in the present action.

81 The applicant disputes the SRB’s arguments. He states that the claim for compensation relating to the non-material damage which he claims to have suffered as a result of psychological harassment by the Head of the SRB Secretariat has a link with the contested decision in so far as that harassment led to his dismissal and to the contested decision.

82 It follows from case-law that, where there is no close link between the action for annulment and the action for damages, the admissibility of the claim for damages must be assessed independently of the admissibility of the claim for annulment. In that case, the admissibility of a claim for damages depends upon the pre-litigation procedure provided for in Articles 90 and 91 of the Staff Regulations, applicable by analogy to members of the temporary staff by virtue of Article 46 of the CEOS, being conducted in the proper manner (see judgment of 2 October 2012, Psarras v ENISA, F‑118/10, EU:F:2012:138, paragraph 70 and the case-law cited).

83 However, an exception has been made to the principle of autonomy of remedies where the action for damages is closely connected with the action for annulment. In that regard, the Court has held that, although a party may take action by means of a claim for compensation without being obliged by any provision of law to seek the annulment of the unlawful measure which caused him or her damage, he or she may not by those means circumvent the inadmissibility of an application which concerns the same instance of illegality and which has the same financial end in view (see judgment of 30 March 2022, KF v EIB, T‑299/20, not published, EU:T:2022:171, paragraph 142 and the case-law cited).

84 Thus, if an applicant sought, by way of a claim for damages, to obtain a result which was identical to that which he or she would have obtained from the success of an action for annulment which the applicant failed to bring in good time, the action for damages would have to be declared inadmissible (see judgment of 30 March 2022, KF v EIB, T‑299/20, not published, EU:T:2022:171, paragraph 145 and the case-law cited).

85 In the present case, it is apparent from the case file that the applicant submitted a request for assistance under Article 24 of the Staff Regulations, alleging psychological harassment by the Head of the SRB Secretariat. That request was rejected by the decision of the SRB of 2 April 2024, which was the subject of a complaint lodged in accordance with Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations, which was rejected by decision of 24 October 2024, as set out in paragraph 19 above.

86 Thus, by seeking compensation for the non-material damage which he claims to have suffered as a result of having been the victim of psychological harassment by the Head of the SRB Secretariat, the applicant is in actual fact seeking to obtain the same result that he would have obtained if he had been successful in a claim for compensation in an action capable of being linked to an action for annulment against the decision rejecting his request for assistance, under Article 24 of the Staff Regulations, by alleging psychological harassment on the part of the Head of the SRB Secretariat. In so far as the applicant did not bring an action against that decision, which has become final, the claim for compensation relating to the alleged psychological harassment by the Head of Secretariat must be rejected as inadmissible.

87 That finding cannot be called into question by the applicant’s argument that the claim for compensation in question has a link with the contested decision. Although a plea in law based on a supposed case of harassment may, on a purely exceptional basis, be relied on in respect of a dismissal decision if it appears that there is a link between the alleged harassment and the grounds of that decision (see judgment of 19 June 2013, CF v EASA, F‑40/12, EU:F:2013:85, paragraph 79 and the case-law cited), it follows from paragraph 77 above that the contested decision is vitiated by a manifest error of assessment in so far as the assessment of the applicant’s work was carried out in the light of requirements relating to a post other than that for which he had been recruited. Thus, no link has been established between the allegations of psychological harassment and the contested decision.

(b) The merits of the claim for compensation

88 The applicant claims that, as a result of the unlawfulness of the contested decision, he has suffered material and non-material damage which it is for the SRB to make good.

89 In that regard, it should be borne in mind that, according to settled case-law, in a claim for damages brought by an official or member of staff, the European Union can be held liable for damages only if three cumulative conditions are satisfied, namely the illegality of the allegedly wrongful conduct of the institutions, actual harm and the existence of a causal link between the wrongful conduct and the harm alleged to have been suffered (see judgment of 16 December 2010, Commission v Petrilli, T‑143/09 P, EU:T:2010:531, paragraph 45 and the case-law cited).

(1) Material damage

90 The applicant claims that he was deprived of a genuine opportunity to be able to work for the SRB as a governance expert until the end of his contract.

91 The SRB disputes the applicant’s arguments.

92 The SRB contends that the applicant has not demonstrated any wrongdoing on the part of the SRB on the ground that he has already received compensation under Article 14(4) of the CEOS. In addition, it submits that the applicant has failed to quantify his loss of opportunity and therefore the damage that he has allegedly suffered.

93 According to case-law, in order to determine the amount of compensation to be paid for the loss of an opportunity, it is necessary, once the nature of the opportunity of which the official or member of the temporary staff has been deprived has been identified, to determine the date as from which he or she would have been given that opportunity and then quantify that opportunity and, lastly, establish the financial consequences for the official or member of the temporary staff arising from that loss of opportunity (see judgment of 14 December 2022, SU v EIOPA, T‑296/21, EU:T:2022:808, paragraph 102 and the case-law cited).

94 Where possible, the opportunity of which an official or a member of the temporary staff has been deprived must be calculated objectively, in the form of a mathematical coefficient resulting from an accurate analysis. However, where that opportunity cannot be quantified in this manner, it is accepted that the damage suffered may be assessed ex æquo et bono (see judgment of 14 December 2022, SU v EIOPA, T‑296/21, EU:T:2022:808, paragraph 103 and the case-law cited).

95 In the present case, 1 January 2024 corresponds to the date from which the applicant would have been able to receive remuneration from the SRB if he had not been unlawfully dismissed at the end of his probationary period. In addition, the applicant is of the view that he was unable to work for the SRB as a governance expert until 31 March 2026. In other words, the damage for which compensation may be awarded in respect of the loss of opportunity claimed by the applicant must be regarded as covering a maximum period of 27 months.

96 In that connection, the applicant provides a quantified assessment of the amount to be used as a basis for calculating the amount of compensation linked to the loss of opportunity. However, that assessment cannot be accepted. In fact, it is not possible to quantify that opportunity correctly and to specify the financial consequences of the loss of opportunity, on the ground that a correct calculation of the applicant’s material damage would depend on various hypotheses, in particular the scope of the new decision adopted by the SRB in the light of the present judgment, the confirmation of his employment contract after his probationary period while working as a governance expert, the total duration of the applicant’s career within the SRB and his promotions. Consequently, it is necessary to assess, in the light of all the circumstances of the case, the damage suffered ex aequo et bono (see, to that effect, judgment of 14 December 2022, SU v EIOPA, T‑296/21, EU:T:2022:808, paragraph 104 and the case-law cited).

97 In the circumstances of the present case, a fair assessment of the entire material damage suffered by the applicant as a result of the loss of his opportunity to have his employment relationship with the SRB extended after his probationary period, that is to say, the loss of the opportunity to have his contract confirmed as from 1 January 2024, while taking into account the compensation received pursuant to Article 14(4) of the CEOS, entails ordering the SRB to pay him, ex aequo et bono, the lump sum of EUR 15 000. That lump sum estimate takes into account, inter alia, the applicant’s grade and the period between the end of his probationary period and the theoretical expiry of his employment contract.

(2) Non-material damage

98 The applicant claims that, because of the unlawfulness of the contested decision, his well-being deteriorated and his professional reputation was damaged.

99 The SRB disputes the applicant’s arguments.

100 The SRB observes that the applicant has not justified the amount of damages claimed in respect of the alleged non-material damage.

101 According to case-law, the annulment of an unlawful measure may in itself constitute appropriate and, in principle, sufficient compensation for any non-material damage which that measure may have caused, unless the applicant shows that he or she has suffered non-material damage that is incapable of being entirely remedied by that annulment (see, to that effect, order of 3 September 2019, FV v Council, C‑188/19 P, not published, EU:C:2019:690, paragraph 26, and judgment of 28 April 2021, Correia v EESC, T‑843/19, EU:T:2021:221, paragraph 86 and the case-law cited).

102 In the present case, the annulment of the contested decision cannot, in itself, constitute full compensation for the non-material damage suffered by the applicant.

103 Although, under Article 266 TFEU, the SRB is required to comply with the present judgment, it will not be able to remedy in full the uncertainty experienced by the applicant as to the development of his career, which has damaged his well-being.

104 In those circumstances, the Court, assessing the damage thus suffered by the applicant ex aequo et bono, considers that an amount of EUR 2 000 constitutes appropriate compensation for the non-material damage suffered by reason of the unlawful conduct of the SRB.

IV. Costs

105 Under Article 134(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, the unsuccessful party is to be ordered to pay the costs if they have been applied for in the successful party’s pleadings. Since the SRB has been unsuccessful, it must be ordered to pay the costs, in accordance with the form of order sought by the applicant.

On those grounds,

THE GENERAL COURT (Tenth Chamber)

hereby:

1. Annuls the decision of the Single Resolution Board (SRB) of 14 December 2023 to dismiss GC at the end of his probationary period;

2. Orders the SRB to pay EUR 15 000 as compensation for the material damage caused to GC;

3. Orders the SRB to pay EUR 2 000 as compensation for the non-material damage caused to GC;

4. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

5. Orders the SRB to pay the costs.

Kalėda

Kanninen

Perišin

Delivered in open court in Luxembourg on 14 October 2026.

T. Henze

M.J. Costeira

Acting Registrar

President

* Language of the case: English.

Texto completo

Continue sua pesquisa no ChatGPT ou Claude