CJEU - C 334/12 RX‑II / Judgment Oscar Orlando Arango Jaramillo and Others v European Investment Bank

Key facts of the case:
  1. The purpose of these proceedings is to review the judgment of the General Court of the European Union (Appeal Chamber) of 19 June 2012 in Case T‑234/11 P Arango Jaramillo and Others v EIB [2012] ECR II‑0000 (‘the judgment of 19 June 2012’), by which that court dismissed the appeal brought by Mr Arango Jaramillo and 34 other members of the staff of the European Investment Bank (EIB) (collectively, ‘the members of staff concerned’) against the order of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal of 4 February 2011 in Case F‑34/10 Arango Jaramillo and Others v EIB [2011] ECR SC‑IA‑1‑0000 and II‑A‑1‑0000 (‘the order of 4 February 2011’), dismissing as being inadmissible, on the ground that it was out of time, the application brought by the members of staff concerned for, first, annulment of their salary statements for the month of February 2010, in so far as they disclose the EIB’s decisions to increase their contributions to the pension scheme, and, secondly, an order that the EIB pay them damages.
  2. The review concerns whether the judgment of 19 June 2012 affects the unity or consistency of European Union law because, first, in that judgment the General Court of the European Union (‘the General Court’), as an appeal court, interpreted the concept of a ‘reasonable period’, in connection with an action brought by staff members of the EIB for annulment of a measure adopted by the EIB which adversely affected them, as a period which, if exceeded, automatically entails that the action is out of time and, therefore, inadmissible, without the Courts of the European Union being required to take into consideration the particular circumstances of the case, and, secondly, in so far as that interpretation of that concept is such as to undermine the right to an effective legal remedy enshrined in Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’).
Results (sanctions) and key consequences of the case:
  1. Declares that the judgment of the General Court of the European Union (Appeal Chamber) of 19 June 2012 in Case T‑234/11 P Arango Jaramillo and Others v EIB affects the consistency of European Union law in so far as that court, as the appeal court, interpreted the concept of a ‘reasonable period’, in the context of an action brought by members of staff of the European Investment Bank (EIB) for annulment of a measure adopted by that bank adversely affecting those members, as a period of three months, which, if exceeded, entails automatically that the action is out of time and, therefore, inadmissible, without the Courts of the European Union being required to take into consideration the circumstances of the case;
  2. Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union;
  3. Refers the case back to the General Court of the European Union;
  4. Orders Mr Oscar Orlando Arango Jaramillo and the 34 other members of staff of the European Investment Bank whose names are listed at the beginning of this judgment, and the European Investment Bank, the Portuguese Republic and the European Commission to bear their own costs relating to the review procedure.
Paragraphs referring to EU Charter: 

 

40-46, 53, 58-59