Order — ECLI:EU:F:2007:71
Date: 2007-04-25
Language of the case: French
Court formation: Second Chamber
Based on: Merger Treaty (1965)
Subject matter: Staff regulations and employment conditions - EC
Concepts: Administrative complaint
Procedure: Staff cases - inadmissible

Summary 1. Officials – Actions – Prior administrative complaint – Time-limits (Staff Regulations, Arts 25, 43 and 90(2)) 2. Officials – Actions – Prior administrative complaint – Date when lodged (Staff Regulations, Art. 90(2)) 1. For a decision to be duly notified, within the meaning of Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations, it must not only have been communicated to its addressee, but the addressee must also have been able to have effective knowledge of its content. It follows that, in a case where an official receives information, sent electronically, that the decision making his staff report definitive has been adopted and that it is accessible on the institution’s internal computer system, the time-limits for lodging a complaint or appeal begin to run from the time when the person concerned accesses the system, opens the file relating to his report and is thus able to have effective knowledge of its content. In that respect, the reliability of the dates and times of consultation, as evidenced by the internal computer system records, cannot be called into doubt merely on the basis of allegations of a risk of data manipulation, without those serious accusations being based on sufficiently accurate, consistent and relevant evidence concerning the circumstances of the case. (see paras 34-36) See: 5/76 Jänsch v Commission [1976] ECR 1027, para. 10 T-507/04 Bravo-Villasante v Commission [2005] ECR-SC I‑A‑361 and II‑1609, para. 29; T-311/04 Buendía Sierra v Commission [2006] ECR II‑4137, para. 121 2. Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations must be interpreted as meaning that the complaint is ‘lodged’ not when it is sent to the institution, but when it reaches that institution. (see para. 39) See: 195/80 Michel v Parliament [1981] ECR 2861, paras 8 and 13 T-54/90 Lacroix v Commission [1991] ECR II‑749, paras 28 and 29 F-3/05 Schmit v Commission [2006] ECR-SC I‑A‑1‑9 and II‑A‑1‑33, para. 28