Judgment;Judgment (extracts) — ECLI:EU:T:2017:901
Date: 2017-12-13
Language of the case: French
Court formation: Second Chamber
Based on: Merger Treaty (1965)
Subject matter: Staff regulations and employment conditions - EC
Procedure: Staff cases - unfounded;Action for damages - unfounded;Judgment delivered after back reference;Review

Summary — Judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber), 13 December 2017 Actions brought by officials — Staff of the European Investment Bank — Time-limits — Requirement that action be brought within a reasonable time — Application by analogy of Article 91(3) of the Staff Regulations — Not permissible — Assessment by reference to the circumstances of the case (Staff Regulations, Arts 90 and 91; Staff Regulations of the European Investment Bank, Art. 41) Nowhere in EU legislation is there any indication as to the time limit for bringing proceedings which is applicable to disputes between the European Investment Bank and its staff. However, the reconciliation of the right to effective judicial protection, which is a general principle of EU law and requires that an individual should have a sufficient period of time to assess the lawfulness of the measure adversely affecting him and, if necessary, to prepare his case, and the need for legal certainty, which requires that, after a certain time, measures taken by European Union bodies should become definitive, requires that those disputes be brought before the European Union Courts within a reasonable period. The ‘reasonableness’ of a period is to be appraised in the light of all the circumstances specific to each case and, in particular, the importance of the case for the person concerned, its complexity and the conduct of the parties. It follows that a time limit which has been laid down in advance cannot be presumed, in general, to constitute a reasonable period. In this regard, while the three-month time limit laid down by Article 91(3) of the Staff Regulations is only applicable to disputes between the institutions of the European Union and their officials or servants, and not to purely internal disputes between the Bank and its members of staff, including disputes in which members of staff seek annulment of acts of the Bank adversely affecting them, it does provide a relevant point of reference, in so far as disputes of the first kind are similar in nature to those of the second, and disputes of both kinds are subject to judicial review under Article 270 TFEU. However, having regard to the concept of a reasonable period, the period of three months laid down in Article 91(3) of the Staff Regulations cannot be applied by analogy as a limitation period to members of staff of the Bank when they bring an action for annulment of a measure adopted by that bank which adversely affects them. (see paras 61, 62, 64-66)