Brussels, 19/11/2013 (Agence Europe) - On Tuesday 19 November, the Court of Justice of the EU ruled (cases C-63, C-66 and C-196/12) that the Council was acting within its rights to invoke the exemption clause of the European staff regulations and to reject the proposal of the European Commission, based on the automatic “adaptation method” of officials' salaries, which was in force until 2012, to increase officials' salaries by 1.7% in 2011. Under the ruling, the Commission is obliged to submit new proposals to the European Parliament and Council which take account of the serious and sudden deterioration of the economic and social situation observed by the Council in 2011.
Up until 2012, the staff regulations provided for an annual adaptation of the salary and pensions of European civil servants by decision of the Council and based on a proposal of the Commission, using a mathematical and automatic calculation method, which left neither the Commission nor the Council any margin of discretion regarding the content of the proposal or the act to be adopted. However, an exemption clause provided that, in the event of a serious and sudden deterioration of the economic and social situation in the EU, the Parliament and the Council may rule together, on a proposal of the Commission, to amend salaries under the ordinary legislative procedure, without being bound by the “adaptation method”. This clause provided for the Commission to supply objective data as to the existence of a deterioration of this kind, but did not stipulate which institution or institutions should assess the data submitted by the Commission to confirm whether or not a sudden and serious deterioration exists. The problem related to the year 2011, when the Commission and the Council clashed over the existence of this situation.
In its rulings returned this Tuesday, the Court has taken position by stating that, at that stage of the procedure, it was up to the Council rather than the Commission to determine whether or not there was a serious and sudden deterioration of the economic and social situation in order to invoke the exemption clause if so. When, as in 2011, the Council, on the basis of the data provided, confirmed the existence of this deterioration, the Commission was obliged to submit to it and the Parliament appropriate proposals on salary amendments on the basis of the exemption clause (the Court recognises that the Commission had a certain margin of discretion regarding the content of these, to take account of factors such as recruitment needs). This means that the Council was not obliged, for the year 2011, to adopt the proposals presented by the Commission on the basis of the “adaptation method”.
As the exemption clause also applies to the annual adaptation of the weighting factors (applied on the basis of living conditions in the various secondment locations), the Council was not obliged to adopt the Commission's proposal regarding any changes to these factors for 2011, either.
Consequently, the Court has rejected the Commission's petition to cancel the Council's decision in which the Council refused to adopt the Commission's proposal to increase, with effect from 1 July 2011, the salaries and pensions of European civil servants by 1.7% and to adapt the weighting factors (case C-63/12). It also rejected the Commission's action for failure to act against the Council (case C-196/12): the Council did not refrain from ruling on the Commission's proposal, which was based on the “adaptation method”, but rejected it, and the Commission was able to challenge this decision in case C-63/12. Lastly, with regard to the ruling returned in case C-63/12, it considers the Council's action (case C-66/12) against the Commission for having violated the exemption clause and the treaties by presenting a proposal on the basis of the “adaptation method” and by refusing to present appropriate proposals on the basis of this clause as being without object.
Among the many reactions to these highly anticipated rulings is that of the Commission, which “welcomes the legal clarity” of the ruling. “We will be studying it and make the necessary provisions with the Council and the Parliament”, its spokesperson said, adding that since the reform in 2012, the exemption clause has been replaced with a moderation clause and a crisis clause limiting salary increases. It was also felt that it was “too early to take position at this point” on the content of the new proposals the institution will be putting before the Council and the EP on the salary adaptations for 2011 in order to take this ruling into account. The UK government has welcomed this ruling, which resolves a case “in which the United Kingdom has played a leading role”. “With governments and families in Europe having to make difficult decisions to make savings, it would have been irresponsible for the EU not to show the same restraint”, a press release argues. (FG/transl.fl)