Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2000:303
Date: 2000-12-13
Language of the case: French
Court formation: Second Chamber
Based on: Merger Treaty (1965)
Subject matter: Staff regulations and employment conditions - EC
Concepts: Conditions of admissibility;Administrative complaint;Effect of the outcome of the action for annulment;Sick leave
Procedure: Staff cases - inadmissible;Action for damages - unfounded;Staff cases - successful

SUMMARY — JOINED CASES T-110/99 AND T-260/99 
costs of the applicant. The applicant is ordered to bear 
one half of her own costs. 
Summary 
1. Officials - Actions - Prior complaint through official channels - Definition -
Classification a matter for the Court 
(Staff Regulations, Art 90(2)) 
2. Officials - Sick leave — Proof of sickness — Production of a medical certificate 
- Presumption of regularity of absence — Medical officer's examination — Failure 
of the official to comply with his duty of cooperation - Consequences 
(Staff Regulations, Arts 59 and 60) 
3. Officials - Actions - Claim for compensation linked with a claim for annulment 
— Inadmissibility of the claim for annulment rendering the claim for compensation 
inadmissible 
(Staff Regulations, Arts 90 and 91) 
4. Officials — Actions — Action for damages brought in the absence of a 
pre-litigation procedure in accordance with the Staff Regulations — Inadmissible 
(Staff Regulations, Arts 90 and 91) 
I-A - 292 
F v PARLIAMENT 
1. The precise classification of a letter is a matter for the Court alone and not for 
the parties. An official's letter which clearly seeks an amicable settlement of the 
official's complaints or a letter which clearly expresses the applicant's intention to 
challenge a decision adversely affecting him constitutes a complaint within the 
meaning of Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations. 
A letter in which the author does no more than, first, request the defendant 
institution to specify the administrative decision on the basis of which annual leave 
was deducted and, secondly, claim that he has not so far received any information 
or decision from the competent authority cannot be classified as a complaint, within 
the meaning of that provision, even if it is described by the author as 'an appeal 
pursuant to Article 90 of the Staff Regulations'. 
(see paras 43, 45-46) 
See: T-108/99 Reggimenti v Parliament [1999] ECR-SC I-A-243 and II-1205. para. 27 
2. Absence is deducted from annual leave on the assumption that the irregularity of 
such absence has been duly established. In that regard, the administration can deny 
the validity of a medical certificate and conclude that the absence of the official 
concerned is unauthorised only where it has previously required him, in accordance 
with the second subparagraph of Article 59(1) of the Staff Regulations, to undergo 
a medical examination. 
Although it is true that the duty of the Community institutions to arrange a medical 
examination necessarily has as its corollary a duty on the part of the officials 
concerned, if Articles 59 and 60 of the Staff Regulations are not to be rendered 
ineffective, to undergo such examinations or to submit certificates showing with 
sufficient clarity and beyond all argument that he was unable to travel for that 
purpose, any failure by the official to comply with that duty cannot, of itself, enable 
I-A - 293 
SUMMARY — JOINED CASES T-110/99 AND T-260/99 
the institution to reverse the presumption which attaches to medical certificates duly 
produced that absences on account of sickness are regular. 
On the other hand, such a failure may, in some circumstances, be the subject of 
disciplinary proceedings brought on the basis of Title VI of the Staff Regulations 
which Article 60 of the Staff Regulations expressly reserves. 
(see paras 66, 67, 69-71) 
See: T-130/96 Aquilino v Council [1998] ECR-SC I-A-351 and II-1017, paras 71, 73 and 
83 
3. Where an official brings an action seeking both the annulment of an act of the 
administration and compensation for the damage which he considers himself to have 
suffered as a result of that act, the claims are closely linked with each other and, 
consequently, the inadmissibility of the claim for annulment entails the 
inadmissibility of the claim for compensation. 
(see para. 82) 
See: T-72/92 Benzler v Commission [1993] ECR II-347, paras 21 and 22 
4. A claim for compensation for non-material damage which stems not from an act 
the annulment of which is sought but from conduct of the administration unrelated 
to any decision must, if it is not to be inadmissible, be preceded by a request within 
the meaning of Article 90(1) of the Staff Regulations that the appointing authority 
compensate for the alleged damage and continued, where appropriate, by a 
I-A - 294 
F v PARLIAMENT 
complaint within the meaning of Article 90(2) made against the decision to reject 
the request. 
(see paras 87-88) 
See: T-17/90, T-28/91, T-28/91 and T-17/92 Cámara Alloisio and Others v Commission 
[1993] ECR II-841, para. 47 
I-A - 295