Order — ECLI:EU:T:2000:94
Date: 2000-03-30
Language of the case: Spanish
Court formation: Second Chamber
Based on: Merger Treaty (1965)
Subject matter: Staff regulations and employment conditions - EC
Concepts: General;Right to a judicial remedy;European Central Bank
Procedure: Staff cases - inadmissible;Action for damages - inadmissible;Application for measures of inquiry - decision unnecessary;Application for legal aid - decision unnecessary

SUMMARY — CASE T-33/99 
Summary 
1. Officials - Actions - Dispute between the European Central Bank and an 
individual concerning a notice inviting applications - Provisions governing 
remedies - Conditions of employment of the European Central Bank — Publication 
- Absence - Application by analogy of the Staff Regulations 
(Staff Regulations, Arts 90 and 91) 
2. Officials - Actions - Dispute between the European Central Bank and an 
individual concerning a notice inviting applications - Seising of the Ombudsman 
before bringing an action - Submission of a complaint to the European Central 
Bank and lodging of an action before the Court of First Instance outside the periods 
prescribed for that purpose - Inadmissibility 
3. Acts of the institutions - General obligation to inform addressees of remedies 
and time-limits - Absence — European Ombudsman — Obligation to inform 
complainants of remedies — Absence 
(Statute of the European Ombudsman, Art. 2(2)) 
1. The provisions of the conditions of employment of the European Central Bank 
on disputes between the Bank and its staff cannot be relied upon, for the purpose 
of assessing the admissibility of an action for annulment brought by an individual 
against a notice inviting applications issued by the Bank when they were not 
published before the date on which the action was brought. The Community 
judicature must therefore fill a gap in the system of remedies which is incompatible 
with the right to effective judicial protection by applying, by analogy, the provisions 
of the Staff Regulations on remedies to which the applicant referred. 
(see paras 30 to 33) 
I-A - 64 
MÉNDEZ PINEDO v EUROPEAN CENTRAL BANK 
See: C-212/94 FMC and Others [1996] ECR I-389, para. 58 
2. An action by an individual for annulment of a notice inviting applications 
published by the European Central Bank is inadmissible where the applicant, after 
lodging a complaint with the Ombudsman, did not observe either the deadline for 
bringing an action for annulment or the deadline for lodging a complaint under the 
Staff Regulations. 
The periods prescribed for bringing judicial proceedings or submitting administrative 
complaints are not interrupted by the seising of the Ombudsman. 
(see paras 22, 24, 26 and 34) 
3. In the absence of an express provision, the administrative or judicial authorities 
of the Community cannot be regarded as being under a general obligation to inform 
the persons concerned of the remedies available or of the conditions in which they 
may exercise them. 
In that regard, although it is true that the Statute of the European Ombudsman 
provides, in particular in Article 2(5), that the Ombudsman may advise a person 
lodging a complaint to address it to another authority, there is no express provision 
requiring that he do so. 
(see para. 36) 
See: C-154/98 P Guérin Automobiles \ Commission [1999] ECR I-1441, para. 13 et seq. 
I-A - 65