Order — ECLI:EU:F:2016:183
Date: 2016-07-21
Language of the case: English
Court formation: Third Chamber
Based on: Merger Treaty (1965)
Subject matter: Staff regulations and employment conditions - EC
Procedure: Staff cases - inadmissible;Action for damages - inadmissible

Summary 1. Actions brought by officials — Challenge to a contract as a member of the auxiliary staff, contractual staff or contractual staff for auxiliary tasks — Request for reclassification of such a contract as a contract as a member of the temporary staff — Remedies (Staff Regulations, Art. 90 and 91) 2. Actions brought by officials — Request under Article 90(1) of the Staff Regulations — Time limit for making request — Reasonable time — Request for reclassification of a contract — Criteria for assessment (Staff Regulations, Art. 90(1)) 1. A member of the auxiliary staff, contract staff or contract staff for auxiliary tasks may bring before the administration, after the time limit for bringing proceedings against his contract has expired, an application requesting that, in the light of the tasks which he has actually carried out since being taken on and which correspond to those of a member of the temporary staff, the period of service completed in performance of such tasks be recognised as a period of service completed as a temporary staff member. Subsequently, the staff member concerned may, if necessary, bring an action before the Courts of the European Union against the rejection of his request in accordance with the conditions laid down in Articles 90 and 91 of the Staff Regulations. (see para. 32) See: Judgment of 26 June 2013 in BU v EMA, F‑135/11, F‑51/12 and F‑110/12, EU:F:2013:93, para. 22 and the case-law cited 2. Even though Article 90(1) of the Staff Regulations does not lay down any time limit for the submission of a claim, there is an obligation to act within a reasonable time in all cases other than those in which the legislature has laid down or expressly excluded a time limit. The rationale for setting a reasonable time limit, in the absence of any statutory rule, is the need to respect the principle of legal certainty, which precludes the acts of EU institutions, bodies, offices and agencies which have legal effects from being challenged without any time limits, thereby threatening to undermine the stability of legal positions already acquired. Therefore, the absence of any time limit in Article 90(1) of the Staff Regulations cannot be taken to imply that it is possible, on the basis of that article, to address a request to the competent administrative authority without the principle of legal certainty being duly respected. The reasonableness of a period of time is to be appraised in the light of all of the circumstances specific to each case and, in particular, the importance of the case for the person concerned, its complexity and the conduct of the parties. Ultimately, where the Staff Regulations do not lay down any specific time limit, respect for the principle of legal certainty, on which the obligation to act within a reasonable time is based, requires that the stability of the contractual legal relationship between a member of the contract staff and his employer should not be undermined by a request for reclassification of a contract submitted well after the time limit of three months, which is the time limit imposed by law in the case of a challenge to an act adversely affecting a staff member, since it is possible to establish with a sufficient degree of certainty the exact moment when the staff member concerned actually became aware of the situation which he considers to have an adverse administrative effect on him and which thus justifies the submission of such a request. (see paras 34-36, 51) See: Judgment of 28 February 2013 in Review of Arango Jaramillo and Others v EIB, C‑334/12 RX-II, EU:C:2013:134, para. 28 Order of 26 June 2009 in Marcuccio v Commission, T‑114/08 P, EU:T:2009:221, para. 25 Judgment of 14 December 2011, Allen and Others v Commission, T‑433/10 P, EU:T:2011:744, paras 26 and 31 Judgments of 1 February 2007 in Tsarnavas v Commission, F‑125/05, EU:F:2007:18, para. 50; 11 May 2010, Nanopoulos v Commission, F‑30/08, EU:F:2010:43, paras 116 and 117, and 26 June 2013, BU v EMA, F‑135/11, F‑51/12 and F‑110/12, EU:F:2013:93, para. 24