Enrico Angelini v Commission of the European Communities. [1983] EUECJ C-131/82 (28 September 1983)

Enrico Angelini v Commission of the European Communities. [1983] EUECJ C-131/82 (28 September 1983)

The Commission's decisions to retire the applicant and not assign him to another post were made within its wide discretionary powers, following proper procedures, and were not vitiated by misuse of powers or insufficient reasoning. The applicant had adequate opportunity to safeguard his interests, and the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[1983] EUECJ C-131/82
Parties
Applicant: Enrico Angelini; Respondent: Commission of the European Communities
Jurisdiction
European Union
Procedural Posture
Annulment Application / Final Judgment
Outcome
application dismissed
Legal Topics
Retirement of Officials, Discretionary Power of Administration, Staff Regulations Article 50, Reassignment of Officials, Misuse of Powers
European Union Law Employment Law Retirement of Officials Discretionary Power of Administration Staff Regulations Article 50 Reassignment of Officials Misuse of Powers

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Enrico Angelini

Applicant

Commission of the European Communities

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Annulment Application / Final Judgment

  1. 1 Whether the Commission's decision to retire the applicant and not assign him to another post was lawful under Article 50 of the Staff Regulations
  2. 2 Whether the decision was vitiated by misuse of powers or insufficient reasoning
  3. 3 Whether the applicant was entitled to preference for reassignment

Ratio Decidendi

The Commission's decisions to retire the applicant and not assign him to another post were made within its wide discretionary powers, following proper procedures, and were not vitiated by misuse of powers or insufficient reasoning. The applicant had adequate opportunity to safeguard his interests, and the comparative examination of candidates for other posts was conducted in accordance with the rules.

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • Application dismissed
  • Each party to bear its own costs