Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2003:285
Date: 2003-10-23
Based on: Merger Treaty (1965)
Subject matter: Staff regulations and employment conditions - EC
Concepts: Reports;Conditions of admissibility
Procedure: Action for damages - successful;Staff cases

SUMMARY - CASE T-25/02 
Held: The Commission is ordered to pay the applicant the sum 
of EUR 3 000, in addition to the sum of EUR 1 500 
already awarded by the Appointing Authority. The 
remainder of the action is dismissed. The Commission is 
ordered to pay the costs. 
Summary 
1. Officials - Actions - Action for damages - Claim for annulment of a 
pre-litigation decision refusing a request for compensation - Claim cannot be 
assessed in isolation from claims for compensation 
(Staff Regulations, Arts 90 and 91) 
2. Officials - Reports procedure - Staff report - Drawing up - Delay - Breach 
of administrative duty giving rise to non-material damage — Delay partly 
attributable to the official 
(Staff Regulations, Art. 43) 
1. An institution's decision rejecting a claim for compensation forms an integral part 
of the preliminary administrative procedure which precedes an action to establish 
liability before the Court of First Instance. 
I-A - 260 
SAUTELET v COMMISSION 
Consequently, claims for annulment of that rejection brought by the official cannot 
be assessed in isolation from the claims relating to liability. The measure setting out 
the position adopted by the institution during the pre-litigation stage only has the 
effect of allowing the party who has suffered damage to apply to the Court for 
compensation. 
(see para. 45) 
See: T-90/95 Gill v Commission (19971 ECR-SC I-A-471 and II-1231. para. 45; T-77/99 
Ojha v Commission (2001) ECR-SC I-A-61 and II-293. para. 68: T-209/99 Hoyer v 
Commission [2002] ECR-SC I-A-243 and II-1211. para. 32 
2. The administration must ensure that staff reports are drawn up periodically on the 
dates laid down by the Staff Regulations and that they are drawn up in a proper 
form, both for reasons of sound administration and in order to safeguard the 
interests of officials. A delay in the drawing up of a staff report may in itself be 
prejudicial to the official for the simple reason that his career progress may be 
affected by the absence of such a report at a time when decisions concerning him 
must be taken. An official in possession of an irregular and incomplete personal file 
thereby suffers non-material damage as a result of being put in an uncertain and 
anxious state of mind with regard to his professional future. In the absence of 
special circumstances justifying the delays found to have occurred, the 
administration commits an administrative fault giving rise to liability on its part. 
I-A - 261 
SUMMARY — CASE T-25/02 
However, an official cannot complain of the delay in drawing up his periodic report 
where the delay is attributable to him, at least in part, or where he contributed 
considerably to the delay. 
(see paras 71-73) 
See: 156/79 and 51/80 Gratreau v Commission [1980] ECR 3943, para. 15; 173/82, 
157/83 and 186/84 Castille v Commission [1986] ECR 497, para. 36; T-73/89 Barbi v 
Commission [1990] ECR II-619, para. 41; T-20/89 Moritz v Commission [1993] ECR 
II-1423, para. 50; T-59/96 Burban v Parliament [1997] ECR-SC I-A-109 and II-331, 
paras 44 and 50; T-187/01 Mellone v Commission [2002] ECR-SC I-A-81 and II-389, 
paras 77, 78 and 79 
I-A - 262