Order — ECLI:EU:T:2015:145
Date: 2015-03-06
Language of the case: Italian
Court formation: Appeals Chamber
Based on: Merger Treaty (1965)
Subject matter: Staff regulations and employment conditions - EC
Procedure: Appeal - unfounded;Appeal - inadmissible;Staff cases
Origin: Italy

Summary 1. Judicial proceedings — Lodging of defence — Time-limit — Resumption of suspended proceedings — Point from which time starts to run (Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal, Arts 39 and 100(3); Staff Regulations, Arts 90(2) and 91(4)) 2. Officials — Decision adversely affecting an official — Obligation to state reasons — Scope — Inadequate statement of reasons — Rectification during the proceedings before the Tribunal — Conditions (Art. 296, second para., TFEU; Staff Regulations, Art. 25, second para.) 1. In a case which has been suspended pursuant to Article 91(4) of the Staff Regulations, an implied decision rejecting a complaint signifies the end of the suspension of the proceedings. From that date, the defendant has, pursuant to Article 39 and Article 100(3) of the Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal, a period of two months, plus a single period of ten days, in which to lodge a defence. (see paras 26, 27) 2. The obligation to state the reasons on which decisions are based is a fundamental principle of Union law. Accordingly, the purpose of the requirement laid down in the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU, and also contained in the second paragraph of Article 25 of the Staff Regulations, is to enable the Tribunal to review the legality of decisions adversely affecting officials and to provide those concerned with sufficient information to assess whether those decisions are well founded or subject to a defect enabling their legality to be challenged. It follows that the statement of reasons must in principle be notified to the person concerned at the same time as the decision adversely affecting him. However, in so far as a decision was adopted in circumstances known to the official concerned, it cannot be regarded as being vitiated by a total absence of a statement of reasons, but merely by an inadequate statement of reasons. An inadequate statement of reasons provided in the course of the pre-litigation procedure is not in itself such as to justify annulment of the decision adopted where additional information is provided by the administration during the proceedings. (see paras 34, 35) See: Judgment of 19 November 1998 in Parliament v Gaspari, C‑316/97 P, ECR, EU:C:1998:558, para. 29 Judgments of 12 December 2002 in Morello v Commission, T‑164/00, ECR-SC, EU:T:2002:312, para. 36; 3 February 2005 in Heurtaux v Commission, T‑172/03, ECR-SC, EU:T:2005:34, para. 44, and 10 October 2014 in EMA v BU, T‑444/13 P, ECR-SC, EU:T:2014:865, para. 37