Judgment — ECLI:EU:F:2013:96
Date: 2013-06-26
Language of the case: German
Court formation: Third Chamber
Based on: Merger Treaty (1965)
Subject matter: Staff regulations and employment conditions - EC
Procedure: Staff cases - inadmissible;Action for damages - unfounded

Summary Actions brought by officials — Prior administrative complaint — Time-limits — Claim barred by lapse of time — Reopening — Condition — New fact — Definition — Act confirming an earlier decision — Not included (Staff Regulations, Arts 90 and 91; Conditions of Employment of Other Servants, Art. 46) Articles 90 and 91 of the Staff Regulations, applicable by analogy to members of the temporary staff pursuant to Article 46 of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants, make the admissibility of an action brought by an official or member of the temporary staff against the institution to which he belongs conditional on the proper observance of the preliminary administrative procedure laid down thereunder. Thus an official or member of the temporary staff may not set aside the time-limits laid down by Articles 90 and 91 of the Staff Regulations for the lodging of a complaint and an appeal by calling in question, by means of a request, a previous decision which has not been challenged within the period prescribed. Only the existence of material new facts can justify the submission of a request for a review of a decision which has become definitive. In that regard, a letter from the administration which merely refers to information already communicated to the person concerned may not be regarded as an act adversely affecting him capable of starting a new period running for initiating proceedings before the Courts. (see paras 23-24, 26) See: 15 May 1985, 127/84 Esly v Commission, para. 10; 4 June 1987, 16/86 P. v ESC, para. 6 11 May 1992, T‑34/91 Whitehead v Commission, para. 18; 4 May 2005, T‑144/03 Schmit v Commission, para. 147 10 September 2007, F‑146/06 Speiser v Parliament, para. 22