Order — ECLI:EU:F:2014:230
Date: 2014-09-30
Language of the case: French
Court formation: Third Chamber
Based on: Merger Treaty (1965)
Subject matter: Staff regulations and employment conditions - EC
Procedure: Staff cases - inadmissible

Summary 1. Actions brought by officials — Act adversely affecting an official — Definition — Decision of the administration which may be considered as a decision of the appointing authority — Included (Staff Regulations, Art. 90(2)) 2. Officials — Decision adversely affecting an official — Obligation for the administration to state the legal remedies available and the time-limits for bringing an action — None 1. For a decision to be capable of being described as an act adversely affecting an official within the meaning of Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations, it must have been adopted by the appointing authority or on its behalf. This is a matter of public policy which the Civil Service Tribunal may raise of its own motion. In view of the status of the authority which addressed the contested act to him and the fact that, on complaint, the appointing authority confirmed the act, the official concerned cannot be criticised for bringing proceedings against the act in the mistaken belief that it was a decision of the competent authority. (see paras 20, 22) See: judgments in Gerin v Commission, 806/79, EU:C:1980:264, para. 4; and Erdini v Council, 65/83, EU:C:1984:24, para. 7 judgment in Devillez and Others v Parliament, T‑46/90, EU:T:1993:54, para. 13 order in Pedeferri and Others v Commission, F‑57/10, EU:F:2011:104, para. 14 2. No express provision of EU law imposes on the institutions any general obligation to inform the addressees of measures of the judicial remedies available or of the time-limits for availing themselves thereof, and the absence of that information cannot lead to any excusable error on the applicant’s part about the remedies and time-limits available. (see para. 29) See: order in Braun-Neumann v Parliament, T‑306/08 P, EU:T:2009:6, para. 34 order in Barthel and Others v Court of Justice, F‑84/11, EU:F:2012:160, para. 35