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

Key facts of the case:
  1. By its decision of 12 July 2012, (2) the Court of Justice decided that there should be a review of 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. (3) This is the second time that the Court has decided, following a proposal made by its First Advocate General, to implement the review procedure. (4)
  2. In the decision of 12 July 2012, the Court identified two specific matters to be examined. 
  3. The first question is to ascertain whether the General Court, as appeal court, correctly interpreted the concept of a reasonable period, in the context of an action brought by staff members of the European Investment Bank (EIB) for annulment of a measure adopted by that bank adversely affecting them, as a period which, if exceeded, has the effect of making the action out of time and, therefore, inadmissible, without the Courts of the European Union being required to take account of the particular circumstances of the individual case. 
Results (sanctions) and key consequences of the case:
  1. Declare 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 a court of appeal, interpreted the term ‘reasonable period’ – applicable in the context of an action brought by staff members of the European Investment Bank (EIB) for annulment of a measure adopted by that bank adversely affecting them – as a period which, if exceeded, has the effect of making the action out of time and, therefore, inadmissible, without the Courts of the European Union being required to take account of the particular circumstances of the individual case, an interpretation which is also excessively strict and consequently infringes the right to an effective judicial remedy, as guaranteed by Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. 
  2. Set aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union. 
  3. Refer the case back to the General Court of the European Union.
  4. Order the appellants, the European Investment Bank, the Portuguese Government and the European Commission to bear their own costs in relation to the review procedure. 
Paragraphs referring to EU Charter: 

 

54-68