Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2002:296
Date: 2002-12-05
Based on: Merger Treaty (1965)
Subject matter: Staff regulations and employment conditions - EC
Concepts: Act adversely affecting the official;Time-limits;General
Procedure: Staff cases - inadmissible

SUMMARY — CASE T-209/99 
Summary 
1. Officials - Actions - Prior complaint through official channels - Time-limits 
— Expiry - Condition - New fact 
(Staff Regulations, Arts 90 and 91) 
2. Officials - Actions — Conditions governing admissibility - Mandatory nature 
— Powers of the Court 
(Staff Regulations, Arts 90 and 91) 
3. Officials - Actions - Act adversely affecting an official - Concept - Purely 
confirmatory act - Exclusion 
(Staff Regulations, Art. 91) 
1. Although, under Article 90(1) of the Staff Regulations, any official may request 
the appointing authority to take a decision relating to him, that right does not allow 
an official to set aside the time-limits laid down in Articles 90 and 91 of the Staff 
Regulations for the lodging of a complaint and an appeal by indirectly calling in 
question, by means of a request, a previous decision which had not been challenged 
within the time-limits. Only the existence of substantial new facts liable to affect the 
official concerned adversely may result in the reopening of those time-limits and 
justify consideration of such a request. 
(see para. 46) 
See: 231/84 Valentini v Commission [1985] ECR 3027, para. 14; T-14/91 Weyrich v 
Commission [1991] ECR II-235, para. 39; T-34/91 Whitehead v Commission [1992] ECR 
II-1723, para. 18 
I-A - 244 
HOYER v COMMISSION 
2. The rules laid down by Articles 90 and 91 of the Staff Regulations are mandatory 
and the parties may not waive them. It is thus for the Community judicature alone, 
whatever the positions adopted by the parties, firstly, to examine and determine 
whether there is indeed an act adversely affecting the official, which thus constitutes 
the starting point of the pre-litigation phase provided for in Article 90(2) of the Staff 
Regulations, and, secondly, to determine the legal nature of the documents sent by 
the official concerned to the institution to which he belongs, since such classification 
is a matter for the Court alone and not in the discretion of the parties. 
(see para. 47) 
See: 122/79 and 123/79 Schiavo v Council [1981] ECR 473. para. 22; T-1/90 
Pérez-Mínguez Casariego v Commission [1991] ECR II-143, para. 38; Whitehead v 
Commission, cited above, para. 19; T-145/00 Hotzel-Wagenknecht v Commission, not 
published in the ECR. para. 23 
3. Since only an act which produces binding legal effects capable of directly and 
immediately affecting an official's legal situation and his position under the Staff 
Regulations can be regarded as adversely affecting him within the meaning of 
Article 91(1) of the Staff Regulations, the lodging of an appeal against an act purely 
confirmatory of a previous decision not challenged within the time-limits is 
inadmissible, since that classification presupposes that the act contains nothing new 
in relation to the decision and was not preceded by a review of the situation of the 
official to whom the decision was addressed. 
(see para. 48) 
See: T-293/94 Vela Palacios v ESC [1996] ECR-SC I-A-305 and II-893. para. 22; 
T-68/97 Neumann and Neumann-Scholles v Commission [1999] ECR-SC I-A-193 and 
II-1005, para. 58; T-87/99 Hendrickx v Cedefop [2000] ECR-SC I-A-147 and II-679. 
para. 37 
I-A - 245