Order — ECLI:EU:T:1998:188
Date: 1998-08-04
Language of the case: French
Court formation: First Chamber
Based on: Merger Treaty (1965)
Subject matter: Staff regulations and employment conditions - EC
Concepts: Specific cases of acts having adverse effect
Procedure: Staff cases - inadmissible

ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (First Chamber) 
4 August 1998 
Case T-77/98 
Franz Eppe 
v 
Commission of the European Communities 
(Manifest inadmissibility) 
Full text in French II - 1347 
Application for: annulment of the Commission's demand for payment of 
the costs which the applicant was ordered to pay by order 
of the President of the Fourth Chamber of the Court of 
First Instance of 13 May 1997 in Case T-99/96 and 
annulment of the implicit decision rejecting the complaint 
lodged against that demand for payment. 
Decision: Application dismissed. 
I-A - 455 
ABSTRACT - CASE T-77/98 
Abstract of the Order 
By order of 13 May 1997 the President of the Fourth Chamber of the Court of First 
Instance ordered the removal from the register of Case T-99/96 and ordered the 
applicant to pay, in addition to his own costs, two thirds of the costs incurred by the 
defendant, those costs having been unreasonably and vexatiously caused. Pursuant 
to that order, the Commission demanded from the applicant payment of the sum of 
BEF 123 333. 
By letter of 15 September 1997 the applicant requested the Commission to agree to 
waive recovery ofthat sum. By letter of 1 October 1997, registered as received on 
14 October 1997, the applicant lodged, to the same end, a complaint under 
Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations of officials of the European Communities ('the 
Staff Regulations'). The defendant did not respond to that complaint. 
On 15 May 1998 the applicant brought the present proceedings for annulment, first, 
of the demand for payment of the costs and, second, of the implicit decision 
rejecting his complaint. 
Under Article 111 of the Rules of Procedure, where an action is manifestly 
inadmissible or manifestly unfounded in law, the Court of First Instance may, by 
reasoned order, give a decision on the action without taking further steps in the 
proceedings (paragraph 5). 
I-A - 456 
EPPE v COMMISSION 
The existence of an act adversely affecting an official within the meaning of 
Articles 90(2) and 91(1) of the Staff Regulations is an essential condition for the 
admissibility of any action brought by officials against the institution by which they 
are employed (paragraph 7). 
See: T-20/92 Moat v Commission [1993] ECR 11-799, para. 39 
Only acts or decisions producing binding legal consequences likely directly and 
immediately to affect the applicant's interests by significantly changing his legal 
situation may be the subject of an action for annulment (paragraph 8). 
See: T-586/93 Kotzonis v ESC [1995] ECR 11-665, para. 28 
The demand for payment of the costs incurred by the Commission in Case T-99/96 
is merely the consequence of compliance with the order of 13 May 1997, against 
which no appeal was lodged within the prescribed period, and thus does not, as 
such, adversely affect the applicant. Moreover, that demand is manifestly 
extraneous to the applicant's rights and obligations under the Staff Regulations. It 
derives from the entitlement to costs awarded to the Commission by the order, and 
is therefore covered not by the pre-litigation procedure provided for by the Staff 
Regulations but by the remedy provided for in Article 92(1) of the Rules of 
Procedure. Consequently, there is no need to consider the claims seeking annulment 
of the alleged implicit decision rejecting the complaint. The action must therefore 
be dismissed in its entirety as manifestly inadmissible (paragraphs 9 to 13). 
Operative part: 
The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible. 
I-A - 457