Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2002:158
Date: 2002-06-13
Based on: Merger Treaty (1965)
Subject matter: Staff regulations and employment conditions - EC
Concepts: General;Conditions of admissibility;Effect of the outcome of the action for annulment;Time-limits;Obligations of officials
Procedure: Action for damages - unfounded;Staff cases - successful

SUMMARY — CASE T-74/01 
Held: The Commission's decision of 19 January 2001 implicitly 
rejecting the complaint lodged by the applicant against the 
Commission's decision of 28 August 2000 refusing him 
permission to produce the documents referred to in that 
complaint in proceedings before a Luxembourg criminal 
court is annulled. The remainder of the application is 
dismissed. The Commission is ordered to bear its own 
costs and to pay those of the applicant. 
Summary 
1. Officials — Actions — Action for the annulment of a confirmatory decision — 
Inadmissibility — Condition — Confirmed decision to have become final 
(Staff Regulations, Art. 91) 
2. Officials - Rights and obligations - Disclosure of official information -
Article 19 of the Staff Regulations - Scope - Restrictive interpretation - Exclusion 
(Staff Regulations, Art. 19) 
3. Officials - Actions - Direct link between an action for damages and an action 
for annulment - Admissibility 
(Staff Regulations, Arts 90 and 91) 
4. Non-contractual liability - Conditions - Illegality - Harm — Causal link 
(Art. 288 EC, second para.) 
I-A - 88 
FERRER DE MONCADA v COMMISSION 
5. Officiais — Actions — Action for damages — Annulment of the contested unlawful 
act - Appropriate reparation for non-material harm 
(Staff Regulations, Art. 91) 
1. In principle, the Community judicature has held an action against a measure 
which is purely confirmatory of an earlier measure to be inadmissible. However, 
that case-law is based on the aim of not reopening time-limits for bringing actions. 
Accordingly, in staff cases, a complaint against a confirmatory decision is 
inadmissible only if the confirmed decision has become final in relation to the 
person concerned for lack of any complaint lodged against it within the prescribed 
time-limit. If the confirmed decision has not become final, the person concerned 
is entitled to contest either the confirmed decision or the confirmatory decision, or 
both. 
(see para. 35) 
See: C-480/93 P Zunis Holding and Others v Commission [1996] ECR I-1, para. 14; 
T-64/92 Chavane de Dalmassy and Others v Commission [1994] ECR-SC I-A-227 and 
II-723, para. 25; T-86/97 Apostolidis v Court of Justice [1998] ECR-SC I-A-167 and 
II-521, para. 21 
2. The scope of Article 19 of the Staff Regulations, as defined in the first sentence 
of that article, cannot be interpreted restrictively to the effect that that article refers 
solely to the case of an official called upon to give evidence in court. That scope 
covers all situations in which an official finds it necessary to disclose, 'on any 
grounds whatever', in any legal proceedings, information of which he has 
knowledge by reason of his duties, without making any distinction between the use 
of such information in a hearing as a witness and such use in the context of the 
initiation of legal proceedings before a national court, such as, for example, the 
reporting of a criminal offence to the prosecuting authorities. It is clear from the 
second sentence of Article 19 of the Staff Regulations that the 'interests of the 
Communities', which under that article may justify a refusal of permission to 
I-A - 89 
SUMMARY - CASE T-74/01 
disclose information in legal proceedings, can only be serious and vital interests of 
the Communities. 
(see paras 48, 58) 
See: Opinion of Advocate General Van Gerven in C-54/90 Weddel v Commission [1992] 
ECR I-871,I-881, point 11 
3. Where there is a direct link between the action for annulment and a claim for 
compensation, the latter may be held to be admissible as incidental to the action for 
annulment, without necessarily having to be preceded both by a request from the 
person concerned to the appointing authority for compensation for the harm 
allegedly sustained and by a complaint challenging the validity of the express or 
implied rejection of that request. 
(see para. 69) 
See: T-17/90, T-28/91 and T-17/92 Camara Alloisio and Others v Commission [1993] 
ECR II-841, para. 46 
4. The Community can only be held liable for damages if a number of conditions 
are satisfied as regards the illegality of the allegedly wrongful conduct of the 
institutions, the genuineness of the harm alleged and the existence of a causal link 
between the conduct and the harm alleged to have been sustained. 
(see para. 71) 
See: 111/86 Delauche v Commission [1987] ECR 5345, para. 30; T-140/97 Hautem v 
EIB [1999] ECR-SC I-A-171 and II-897, para. 83 
I-A - 90 
FERRER DE MONCADA v COMMISSION 
5. The annulment of an act of the administration challenged by an official may in 
itself constitute appropriate and, in principle, sufficient reparation for any 
non-material harm which that official may have sustained as a result of that act, in 
particular if the act contained no offensive assessment in regard to him. 
(see para. 74) 
See: C-343/87 Culin v Commission [1990] ECR I-225, para 25 to 29; T-37/89 Hanning 
v Parliament [1990] ECR II-463, para. 83; Hautein v EIB, cited above, para. 82 
I-A - 91