CELEX: 62005FJ0042
Officials
Action for annulment
Action for damages

1.
Officials – Reports procedure – Staff report – Judicial review – Limits
(Staff Regulations, Art. 43)
2.
Officials – Actions – Action for compensation for damage caused by an act not in the nature of a decision
(Staff Regulations, Arts 90 and 91)
3.
Officials – Actions – Conditions for admissibility – Matter of public policy
(Staff Regulations, Arts 90 and 91)
1.
Review by the Community judicature of the content of staff reports is limited to ensuring that the procedure is conducted
in a regular manner, the facts are materially correct, and there is no manifest error of assessment or misuse of powers.
(see para. 33)
See:
T-18/93
Marcato
v
Commission
[1994] ECR-SC I‑A‑215 and II‑681, para. 45; T-179/02
Pflugradt
v
ECB
[2003] ECR-SC I‑A‑149 and II‑733, para. 46
2.
Under Articles 90 and 91 of the Staff Regulations an action for compensation for damage caused by an act not in the nature
of a decision, such as workplace harassment, must be preceded by an administrative procedure in two phases. First, the person
concerned must submit to the appointing authority a request, within the meaning of Article 90(1) of the Staff Regulations,
asking the administration to make good that damage. It is only the express or implied rejection of that request which constitutes
a decision having an adverse effect against which a complaint may be directed, and it is only after a decision expressly or
implicitly rejecting that complaint that an action for damages may be brought before the Court of First Instance.
(see paras 58-61)
See:
200/87
Giordani
v
Commission
[1989] ECR 1877, para. 22
T-79/92
Ditterich
v
Commission
[1994] ECR-SC I‑A‑289 and II‑907, para. 41 and the case-law cited therein; T-194/00
Antas de Campos
v
Parliament
[2002] ECR-SC I‑A‑59 and II‑279, para. 72; of 8 July 2004 in T-200/02
Tsarnavas
v
Commission
, not published in the ECR, para. 48; F-3/05
Schmit
v
Commission
[2006] ECR-SC I‑A‑1‑9 and II‑A‑1‑33, para. 48
3.
The rules laid down in Articles 90 and 91 of the Staff Regulations are a matter of public policy and cannot be left to the
parties or to the courts to apply. Consequently, the fact that an institution did not, in a decision expressly rejecting a
complaint, raise the inadmissibility of a claim for damages included in that complaint neither precludes the administration
from being able to put forward a plea of inadmissibility at the litigation stage, nor exempts the Court from the obligation
to verify whether Articles 90 and 91 of the Staff Regulations have been observed.
(see para. 62)
See:
T-209/99
Hoyer
v
Commission
[2002] ECR-SC I‑A‑243 and II‑1211, para. 47