Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2000:307
Date: 2000-12-14
Based on: Merger Treaty (1965)
Subject matter: Staff regulations and employment conditions - EC
Concepts: Act adversely affecting the official;Conditions of admissibility;Obligations of the administration
Procedure: Staff cases - inadmissible

SUMMARY — CASE T-213/99 
Summary 
1. Officials - Actions - Act adversely affecting an official - Definition -
Organisational measure internal to department - Not included - Measure relating 
to the administration and supervision of work — Inadmissible 
(Staff Regulations, Arts 90 and 91) 
2. Officials - Duty of the administration to provide assistance - Scope - Limits 
(Staff Regulations, Art. 24) 
3. Officials - Actions - Application for damages linked to an application for 
annulment - Inadmissibility of the application for annulment entailing 
inadmissibility of the application for damages 
(Staff Regulations, Arts 90 and 91) 
1. Purely internal measures of organisation, in particular those concerning 
administration and work supervision, such as instructions concerned exclusively with 
matters internal to a service, as internal guidelines intended to ensure the proper 
performance of work, cannot be the subject of an application to the Court as they 
do not affect the legal or material position of the official affected by such a 
measure. 
(see paras 20, 30) 
See: T-47/90 Herremans v Commission [1991] ECR II-467, para. 22; T-69/92 Seghers 
v Council [1993] ECR II-651, para. 29; T-26/96 Lopes v Court of Justice [1996] ECR-SC 
I-A-487 and II-1357, paras 34 and 35 
I-A - 298 
VERHEYDEN v COMMISSION 
2. The first paragraph of Article 24 of the Staff Regulations requires, first, that 
where there are serious accusations as to the integrity of an official in carrying out 
his duties, the administration is to take all necessary steps to establish whether the 
accusations are justified, and where they are not, must refute them and do 
everything possible to restore the good name of the official concerned. That duty 
to provide assistance also exists where the perpetrator of the acts referred to by 
Article 24 of the Staff Regulations is another Community official. 
Comments contained in a memorandum addressed to an official by his head of unit, 
which merely point out to him either that he has failed to carry out tasks allocated 
to him or that he has carried them out contrary to the applicable procedure, cannot 
be classified as serious accusations such as to harm the professional integrity of the 
person concerned, and even less as defamatory or as a personal attack. Accordingly, 
as the rights of the person concerned are in no way prejudiced by such comments, 
the refusal by the administration to take action on a request for assistance under the 
first paragraph of Article 24 of the Staff regulations cannot be considered to be an 
act adversely affecting an official. 
(see paras 25-28) 
See: 128/75 N. v Commission [1976] ECR 1567. para. 10; 18/78 V. v Commission [1979] 
ECR 2093, para. 15; T-5/92 Tallarico v Parliament [1993] ECR II-477, para. 30; 
T-39/93 and T-553/93 Baltsavias v Commission [1995] ECR-SC l-A-233 and II-695, 
para. 58; Lopes v Court of Justice, cited above, paras 40 to 42 
3. Where an applicant brings an action in a staff case seeking at the same time 
annulment of an act of an institution and the award of compensation for damage 
caused by that act, the claims are so closely linked that the inadmissibility of the 
claim for annulment entails the inadmissibility of the action for compensation. 
(see para. 35) 
I-A - 299 
SUMMARY - CASE T-213/99 
See: T-11/90 H.S. v Council [1992] ECR H-1869, para. 25; T-82/91 Latham v 
Commission [1994] ECR-SC I-A-15 and II-61, para. 34 
I-A - 300