Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2003:284
Date: 2003-10-23
Based on: Merger Treaty (1965)
Subject matter: Staff regulations and employment conditions - EC
Concepts: Reports;Conditions of admissibility
Procedure: Action for damages - successful;Staff cases

SUMMARY - CASE T-24/02 
Held: The Commission is ordered to pay the applicant the sum 
of EUR 2 500, in addition to the sum of EUR 1 500 
already awarded by the Appointing Authority. The 
remainder of the action is dismissed. The Commission is 
ordered to pay the costs. 
Summary 
1. Officials - Actions - Action for damages - Claim for annulment of a 
pre-litigation decision refusing a request for compensation - Claim cannot be 
assessed in isolation from claims for compensation 
(Staff Regulations, Arts 90 and 91) 
2. Officials - Reports procedure - Staff report - Drawing up - Delay - Breach 
of administrative duty giving rise to non-material damage - Delay partly 
attributable to the official 
(Staff Regulations, Art. 43) 
3. Officials - Reports procedure - Staff report - Inclusion in the official's 
personal file - Signature of the official reported on - Not an essential requirement 
for inclusion 
(Staff Regulations, Art. 43) 
4. Officials — Reports procedure - Staff report - Officials performing staff 
representation duties - Reporting procedure - Time-limit for final report 
(Staff Regulations, Art. 43; Annex II, Art. 1, sixth para.; Commission's general 
implementing provisions, Art. 7) 
I-A - 254 
LEBEDEF-CAPONI v COMMISSION 
1. An institution's decision rejecting a claim for compensation forms an integral part 
of the preliminary administrative procedure which precedes an action to establish 
liability before the Court of First Instance. 
Consequently, claims for annulment of that rejection brought by the official cannot 
be assessed in isolation from the claims relating to liability. The measure setting out 
the position adopted by the institution during the pre-litigation stage only has the 
effect of allowing the party who has suffered damage to apply to the Court for 
compensation. 
(see para. 41) 
See: T-90/95GM v Commission [1997] ECR-SC I-A-471 and II-1231, para. 45; T-77/99 
Ojha v Commission [2001] ECR-SC I-A-61 and II-293, para. 68; T-209/99 Hoyer v 
Commission [2002] ECR-SC I-A-243 and II-1211, para. 32 
2. The administration must ensure that staff reports are drawn up periodically on the 
dates laid down by the Staff Regulations and that they are drawn up in a proper 
form, both for reasons of sound administration and in order to safeguard the 
interests of officials. A delay in the drawing up of a staff report may in itself be 
prejudicial to the official for the simple reason that his career progress may be 
affected by the absence of such a report at a time when decisions concerning him 
must be taken. An official in possession of an irregular and incomplete personal file 
thereby suffers non-material damage as a result of being put in an uncertain and 
anxious state of mind with regard to his professional future. In the absence of 
special circumstances justifying the delays found to have occurred, the 
administration commits an administrative fault giving rise to liability on its part. 
I-A - 255 
SUMMARY - CASE T-24/02 
However, an official cannot complain of the delay in drawing up his periodic report 
where the delay is attributable to him, at least in part, or where he contributed 
considerably to the delay. 
(see paras 71-73) 
See: 156/79 and 51/80 Gratreau v Commission [1980] ECR 3943, para. 15; 173/82, 
157/83 and 186/84 Castille v Commission [1986] ECR 497, para. 36; T-73/89 Barbi v 
Commission [1990] ECR II-619, para. 41; T-20/89 Moritz v Commission [1993] ECR 
II-1423, para. 50; T-59/96 Burban v Parliament [1997] ECR-SC I-A-109 and 11-331, 
paras 44 and 50; T-187/01 Mellone v Commission [2002] ECR-SC I-A-81 and II-389, 
paras 77, 78 and 79 
3. The signature of the member of staff reported on is not essential for a report to 
be included in his personal file where all the rules relating to the drawing up of the 
report have been complied with by the administration beforehand. 
(see para. 77) 
4. The general provisions adopted by the Commission for implementing Article 43 
of the Staff Regulations do not lay down a precise time-limit for the ad hoc joint 
appeal committee when it is called upon to adjudicate on the report of an official 
performing staff representation duties. However, given that the entire procedure 
must, under Article 7 of those provisions, be concluded by 31 December of the year 
in question at the latest, the same time-limit must necessarily apply for officials 
performing staff representation duties, for whom the provisions require consultation 
first of the ad hoc staff reports group and, in the event of an appeal, the ad hoc joint 
appeal committee. According to the final paragraph of Article 1 of Annex II to the 
Staff Regulations, the fact of performing staff representation duties must in no way 
be prejudicial to the official concerned. If the target date of 31 December did not 
apply to the reports procedure for such officials, they would suffer damage as a 
I-A - 256 
LEBEDEF-CAPONI v COMMISSION 
result of their activities in that they would not receive their final report at the same 
time as officials not performing staff representation duties. 
(see para. 84) 
I-A - 257