Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2002:119
Date: 2002-05-14
Language of the case: Portuguese
Court formation: Second Chamber
Based on: Merger Treaty (1965)
Subject matter: Staff regulations and employment conditions - EC
Concepts: Conditions of admissibility;Termination of service
Procedure: Staff cases - unfounded;Action for damages - unfounded;Action for damages - inadmissible

SUMMARY — CASE T-194/00 
Held: The claims for annulment are dismissed as unfounded. 
The claims for compensation for damage caused by the 
contested decision are dismissed as unfounded. The 
remainder of the claim for compensation is dismissed as 
inadmissible. The parties are ordered to bear their own 
costs. 
Summary 
1. Officials — Termination of service — Release — Council Regulation No 2688/95 
authorising the European Parliament to adopt measures to release its staff — 
Discretion of the institution — Judicial review - Limits 
(Council Regulation No 2688/95, Art. 3) 
2. Officials — Actions — Action for compensation for damage caused by an act not 
in the nature of a decision - Absence of a pre-litigation procedure in accordance 
with the Staff Regulations — Inadmissible 
(Staff Regulations, Arts 90 and 91) 
1. The termination-of-service measures which were authorised by Regulation 
No 2688/95 do not have their legal origin in the Staff Regulations and therefore do 
not constitute a standard event in the careers of the persons concerned. Such 
measures to release staff must, on the contrary, be regarded as a practice to which 
the Community has resorted in specific cases in the interest of the proper 
functioning of its institutions. It follows that the institution concerned is not obliged 
either to grant the requests submitted to it or to make even partial use of the power 
conferred on it to decide to terminate the service of some of its officials. 
I-A - 60 
ANTAS DE CAMPOS v PARLIAMENT 
Accordingly, the institution concerned has a wide discretion when applying the 
criteria set out in Article 3 of that regulation. Judicial review of such an assessment 
must therefore be limited to verifying whether the procedural rules have been 
complied with, whether the facts on which the contested choice is based have been 
accurately stated and whether there has been a manifest error in assessing those facts 
or a misuse of powers. 
(see paras 36-37) 
See: C-432/98 P and C-433/98P Council v Chvatal and Others [2000] ECR I-8535, paras 
28 and 29 
2. When an official claims compensation for damage caused by an act that is not in 
the nature of a decision, he must first submit an application to the administration for 
compensation for the damage. If the administration does not grant that application, 
the person concerned must lodge a complaint against its express or implied 
rejection, and it is only after that complaint has been rejected that he may bring an 
action for damages before the Court. 
(see para. 72) 
See: T-5/90 Marcato v Commission [1991] ECR II-731, para. 50; T-65/91 White v 
Commission [1994] ECR-SC I-A-9 and II-23, para. 137; T-36/93 Ojha v Commission 
[1995] ECR-SC I-A-161 and II-497, para. 117 et seq.; T-507/93 Branco v Court of 
Auditors [1995] ECR-SC I-A-265 and II-797, para. 44 
I-A - 61