Order — ECLI:EU:T:2002:105
Date: 2002-04-29
Language of the case: French
Court formation: First Chamber
Based on: Merger Treaty (1965)
Subject matter: Staff regulations and employment conditions - EC
Concepts: Administrative complaint;Mandatory nature
Procedure: Staff cases - inadmissible

SUMMARY - CASE T-68/98 
Summary 
Officials - Actions - Prior complaint through official channels - Time-limits -
Matter of public policy — Expiry — Reopening - Condition - New fact — To be 
put forward within a reasonable period 
(Staff Regulations, Arts 90 and 91) 
An action brought by an official before the Court of First Instance must be held to 
be inadmissible if the pre-litigation procedure has not followed its proper course. 
In that respect, the time-limits prescribed in Articles 90 and 91 of the Staff 
Regulations, being designed to ensure legal certainty, are a matter of public policy 
and are binding on the parties and the Court. An official cannot therefore revive 
for himself a right of appeal against a decision which has become definitive upon 
the expiry of the abovementioned time-limits by submitting a request to the 
appointing authority under Article 90(1) of the Staff Regulations. The existence of 
a new and substantive fact may, however, justify the submission of a request for the 
re-examination of such a decision. In order to be able to rely effectively on such a 
fact, it is for the official to submit his request through official channels within a 
reasonable period. Whether such a period is reasonable must be determined when 
it has ended, that is to say, on the day when the request is submitted. 
(see paras 38-39, 41,43) 
See: 231/84 Valentini v Commission [1985] ECR 3027, para. 14; T-34/91 Whitehead v 
Commission [1992] ECR II-1723, para. 18; T-495/93 Carrer and Others v Court of 
Justice [1994] ECR-SC I-A-201 and II-651, para. 20; T-112/94 Moat v Commission 
[1995] ECR-SC I-A-37 and II-135, para. 25; T-202/97 Koopman v Commission [1998] 
ECR-SC I-A-163 and II-511, para. 24; T-42/97 Lebedef v Commission [1998] ECR-SC 
I-A-371 and II-1071, para. 25; T-192/99Dunnett and Others v EIB [2001] ECR II-813, 
para. 52 
I-A - 56