Order — ECLI:EU:T:2012:538
Date: 2012-10-11
Language of the case: French
Court formation: Appeals Chamber
Based on: Merger Treaty (1965)
Subject matter: Staff regulations and employment conditions - EC
Procedure: Appeal - unfounded;Staff cases

Summary Officials — Actions — Prior administrative complaint — Time-limits — Claim barred by lapse of time — Reopening — Condition — Substantial new fact (Staff Regulations, Arts 90 and 91) The existence of substantial new facts may justify the submission of a request for reconsideration of a previous decision which has become definitive. In that regard, an annulling judgment of a European Union Court is capable of constituting a new fact allowing the reopening of the time-limits for complaint or appeal only in respect of, first, the parties to the proceedings and, secondly, other persons directly concerned by the annulled measure. Although, under the principle of a single administration, as laid down in Article 9(3) of the Treaty of Amsterdam, all the officials of all the institutions of the Union are governed by the same provisions, such a principle does not mean that the institutions are required to make identical use of the discretion afforded to them by the Staff Regulations. On the contrary, the institutions have autonomy in the organisation of their departments. A decision, adopted voluntarily by an institution other than the institution of the person concerned, to extend the legal effects of a judgment to all its officials cannot therefore be considered to be a new fact enabling the person concerned to request a review of the administrative decision concerning him. (see paras 18, 20, 25) See: 43/64 Müller v Councils [1965] ECR 385, 397; 5/70 Prelle v Commission [1970] ECR 1075, para. 13; 231/84 Valentini v Commission [1985] ECR 3027, para. 14; 125/87 Brown v Court of Justice [1988] ECR 1619, para. 14 T‑16/97 Chauvin v Commission [1997] ECR-SC I‑A‑237 and II‑681, paras 37 and 39 to 45; T‑220/95 Gimenez v Committee of the Regions [1997] ECR-SC I‑A‑275 and II‑775, para. 72; T‑271/08 P Boudovaand Others v Commission [2009] ECR-SC I‑B‑1-71 and II‑B‑1-441, para. 48