Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2002:58
Date: 2002-03-06
Language of the case: French
Court formation: Fourth Chamber
Based on: Merger Treaty (1965)
Subject matter: Staff regulations and employment conditions - EC
Concepts: Revision of a judgment
Procedure: Staff cases;Application for revision of a judgment - inadmissible

SUMMARY - CASE T-77/99 
Summary 
1. Non-contractual liability - Conditions - Illegality - Damage - Causal link -
Burden of proof 
(EC Treaty, Art. 215 (now Art. 288 EC)) 
2. Officials - Decision concerning the administrative status of an official -
Personal file - Notice of taking up duties not placed on personal file -
Maladministration of such a kind as to render the institution liable - None -
Conditions 
(Staff Regulations, Art. 26) 
3. Officials - Actions - Action for compensation - Claim for annulment of a 
pre-litigation decision refusing a request for compensation — Claim cannot be 
assessed in isolation from claims for annulment 
(Staff Regulations, Arts 90 and 91) 
1. The Community can be held liable only if a number of conditions are satisfied 
as regards the illegality of an institution's conduct, the genuine nature of the damage 
suffered and the existence of a causal link between the conduct of the institution and 
the damage alleged. 
It is incumbent upon the applicant to produce to the Community judicature evidence 
to establish the fact and the extent of the loss which he claims to have suffered. 
(see paras 50, 63) 
I-A - 62 
OJHA v COMMISSION 
See: 256/80, 257/80, 265/80, 267/80 and 5/81 Birra Wührer and Others v Council and 
Commission [1982] ECR 85, para. 9; 51/81 De Franceschi v Council and Commission 
[1982] ECR 117, para. 9; T-205/96 Bieber v Parliament [1998] ECR-SC I-A-231 and 
II-723, paras 48 and 67, and the case-law cited; T-112/96 and T-115/96 Séché v 
Commission [1999] ECR-SC I-A-115 and II-623, para. 279; T-164/98 Carraro v 
Commission [2000] ECR-SC I-A-35 and I-157, para. 42; C-237/98 P Dorsch Consult v 
Council and Commission [2000] ECR I-4549, para. 23, and the case-law cited 
2. The purpose of Article 26 of the Staff Regulations is to ensure that decisions 
taken by the appointing authority concerning the administrative status and career of 
the official concerned are not based on matters concerning his conduct which are not 
included in his personal file. It follows that any document which might affect the 
administrative status of the official and his career must be placed in his personal 
file. The expression 'administrative status' covers the principal events of an 
official's career, but it also covers other events concerning certain rights recognised 
by the Staff Regulations. 
It follows that the appointing authority must communicate to the official and place 
on his personal file not only formal measures recording a change in his status but 
also any document which may affect his administrative status in the above sense. 
The notice of taking up duties of an official reassigned in the interests of the service 
is such a document, given that that document is vital for the importation free of 
VAT of the vehicle of the person concerned into the Member State to which he is 
assigned and thus affects his 'administrative status'. 
I-A - 63 
SUMMARY - CASE T-77/99 
However, the mere fact that that notice was not placed on the personal file of the 
official concerned cannot constitute maladministration of such a kind as to render 
the institution liable since that document was completed and signed by the person 
concerned himself with the result that he was aware of its existence and could rely 
on it before the competent Community or national authorities. Moreover, in the 
event of the appointing authority not placing such documents on the official's 
personal file, it would always be open to the official to make a request to that effect 
under Article 90(1) of the Staff Regulations, and, in the event of rejection, to lodge 
an administrative complaint. 
(see paras 56-61) 
See: 140/86 Strack v Commission [1987] ECR 3939, para. 8; T-84/92 Nielsen and Møller 
v ESC [1993] ECR II-949, para. 59; C-294/95 P Ojha v Commission [1996] ECR I-5863, 
paras 57 and 68; Opinion of Advocate General Léger in Ojha v Commission, cited above; 
T-148/96 and T-174/96 Brognieri v Commission[1999] ECR-SC I-A-65 and II-329,para. 
41 and the case-law cited, and para. 45 
3. 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. Consequently, claims for annulment 
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. 68) 
See: T-90/95 Gill v Commission [1997] ECR-SC I-A-471 and II-1231, para. 45 
I-A - 64