Order — ECLI:EU:F:2014:20
Date: 2014-02-13
Language of the case: French
Court formation: First Chamber
Based on: Merger Treaty (1965)
Subject matter: Staff regulations and employment conditions - EC
Procedure: Staff cases - inadmissible

Summary Actions brought by officials — Prior administrative complaint — Time-limits — Claim barred by lapse of time — Reopening — Condition — Substantial new fact (Staff Regulations, Arts 90 and 91) A decision which has not been challenged by the person to whom it is addressed within the prescribed period becomes definitive as against that person. However, the existence of substantial new facts may justify the submission of a request for reconsideration of an earlier decision which has become definitive. An action brought against a decision refusing to reconsider a decision which has become definitive will be declared admissible if it appears that the request for reconsideration was actually based on substantial new facts. An annulling judgment of a Union Court is capable of constituting a new fact only in respect of, first, the parties to the proceedings and, second, other persons directly concerned by the annulled measure. (see paras 16, 17, 23) See: 19 June 2007, T‑473/04 Asturias Cuerno v Commission, 12 September 2011, F‑98/10 Cervelli v Commission, confirmed on appeal by the order of the General Court of the European Union of 11 October 2012, T‑622/11 P Cervelli v Commission, paras 19, 20 and 23 and the case-law cited therein