Order — ECLI:EU:F:2013:105
Date: 2013-06-27
Language of the case: Italian
Court formation: Single Judge
Based on: Merger Treaty (1965)
Subject matter: Staff regulations and employment conditions - EC;Procedural provisions
Procedure: Staff cases;Application as to costs

Summary 1. Officials – Actions – Act adversely affecting an official – Preparatory act – Report by the Investigation and Disciplinary Office – Inadmissibility (Staff Regulations, Arts 90 and 91) 2. Officials – Obligation of administration to provide assistance – Scope (Staff Regulations, Art. 24) 1. As regards staff cases, acts preparatory to a final decision do not adversely affect the applicant and therefore can only be contested incidentally in an appeal against measures capable of being annulled. Although some purely preparatory measures may adversely affect an official inasmuch as they may influence the content of a subsequent challengeable act, those measures cannot be the subject of a separate action and must be challenged in support of an action brought against that act. Since the report by the Investigation and Disciplinary Office merely constitutes a measure preparatory to a final decision which the appointing authority has been led to adopt in a particular case, claims for the annulment of that report must be dismissed as manifestly inadmissible. (see paras 39-40) See: 11/64 Weighardt v Commission [1965] ECR 285, 298; 35/67 Van Eick v Commission [1968] ECR 329, 341; 346/87 Bossi v Commission [1989] ECR 303, para. 23 T-309/03 Camós Grau v Commission [2006] ECR II‑1173, paras 46-58 2. In accordance with its duty to provide assistance the administration, when faced with an incident which is incompatible with the good order and tranquillity of the service, must intervene with all the necessary vigour and respond with the rapidity and solicitude required by the circumstances of the case with a view to ascertaining the facts and, consequently, taking the appropriate action in full knowledge of the facts. To that end, it is sufficient that the official who is seeking the protection of his institution provide at least some evidence of the reality of attacks of which he claims he was the victim. When such evidence is provided, the institution concerned is under an obligation to take the necessary measures, in particular to undertake an inquiry, with the cooperation of the complainant, to determine the facts which gave rise to the complaint. (see para. 47) See: 224/87 Koutchoumoff v Commission [1989] ECR 99, paras 15 and 16 F‑63/06 Mascheroni v Commission [2007] ECR-SC I‑A‑1‑0000 and II‑A‑1‑0000, para. 36