Order — ECLI:EU:T:1998:61
Date: 1998-03-20
Language of the case: French
Court formation: Fourth Chamber
Based on: Merger Treaty (1965)
Subject matter: Staff regulations and employment conditions - EC
Concepts: Administrative complaint;Mandatory nature
Procedure: Staff cases - inadmissible
Origin: Belgium

ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Fourth Chamber) 
20 March 1998 
Case T-301/97 
Pierre-Alexis Feral 
v 
Committee of the Regions 
(Officials - Time-limit for submitting complaints - Manifest inadmissibility of 
the action) 
Full text in French 11-471 
Application for: annulment of the decision of 2 September 1997 of the 
Committee of the Regions refusing to pay the applicant the 
daily subsistence allowance provided for by the first 
subparagraph of Article 10(2), point (b), of Amiex VII to 
the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European 
Communities. 
Decision: Application dismissed. 
I-A - 145 
ABSTRACT - CASE T-301/97 
Abstract of the Order 
The applicant, Mr Feral, took up employment with the Committee of the Regions 
('COR') on 16 May 1994, as a member of the auxiliary staff. On 1 January 1995 
he was appointed as a probationary official in the Directorate for the Registry, the 
Legal Service and Research of the COR. His probationary period came to an end 
on 16 January 1997. 
By letter of 1 July 1996 the applicant submitted a request under Article 90(1) of the 
Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communities ('Staff Regulations') for 
the application of Article 10 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations concerning the 
'daily subsistence allowance'. In a memorandum of 9 October addressed to the 
applicant the Secretary-General of the COR stated that the administration had 
decided to grant his request ('decision of 9 October 1996'). On 13 November 1996 
the applicant's bank account was credited with an amount equivalent to the daily 
subsistence allowance in respect of a period of 120 days. 
By letter dated 14 February 1997 the applicant submitted a second request under 
Article 90(1) of the Staff Regulations again seeking 'the full and correct application 
of Article 10 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations concerning the "daily 
subsistence allowance'". He claimed that there had been an incorrect application in 
his case of the first subparagraph of Article 10(2), point (a), of Annex VII to the 
Staff Regulations which limits the period in respect of which the allowance is paid 
to 120 days, whereas the first subparagraph of Article 10(2), point (b), limiting the 
period of payment of the allowance to 'the period of probation plus one month', 'if 
the official is a probationer', should have been applied. 
I-A - 146 
FERAL v COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS 
By letter of 2 September 1997 ('decision of 2 September 1997') the 
Secretary-General of the COR informed the applicant that his request amounted 'de 
facto and de jure to a "complaint" under Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations 
concerning the period in respect of which daily subsistence allowances are paid'. He 
rejected the complaint as inadmissible on the ground that the applicant did not lodge 
it against the decision of 9 October 1996 within the period of three months laid 
down by the Staff Regulations. 
Admissibility 
The time-limits prescribed by Articles 90 and 91 of the Staff Regulations for 
submitting complaints and bringing actions are a matter of public policy. Even 
where the administration has replied at the pre-litigation stage to the arguments put 
forward by the complainant on the substance of his claim, the Court is not exempted 
from the obligation to verify whether the action is admissible from the point of view 
of observance of the time-limits laid down by the Staff Regulations (paragraph 19). 
See: 227783 Moussis v Commission [1984] ECR 3133, paras 12 and 13; T-l 15/92 Hogan v 
Parliament [1993] ECR 11-895, para. 31 
The precise legal categorisation of a letter or memorandum is a matter for the Court 
alone and not for the parties. A letter from an official which does not expressly 
request the withdrawal of the decision in question but is clearly intended to achieve 
an amicable settlement of his complaints constitutes a complaint within the meaning 
of Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations, as does a letter which clearly manifests the 
applicant's intention to challenge the decision which adversely affects him 
(paragraph 22). 
See: Hogan v Parliament, cited above, paragraph 36 
I-A - 147 
ABSTRACT - CASE T-301/97 
In this case, it is clear from the wording of the letter of 14 February 1997 that the 
applicant was contesting the decision to grant him an amount equivalent to a daily 
subsistence allowance in respect of only 120 days. It must therefore be categorised 
as a complaint under Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations against the decision of 
9 October 1996 (paragraphs 23 and 24). 
Since it is not proven that the applicant knew of the decision of 9 October 1996 
before the expiry of the period of four months available to the COR for taking a 
decision on the request of 1 July 1996, under the third indent of the first 
subparagraph of Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations, the complaint should have 
been submitted by 4 February 1997 at the latest (paragraph 25). 
See: T-247/97Lonuzzo-Murgantev Parliament [1998] ECR-SC 11-317, para. 42 
Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations does not provide that an explicit decision taken 
after the implied decision rejecting a request made under Article 90(1) of the Staff 
Regulations causes the period for submitting complaints to run afresh. The fact that, 
in this case, the applicant became aware of the explicit decision of the administration 
when he received his bank statement of 15 November 1996 is thus of no relevance 
(paragraph 26). 
As the complaint is inadmissible since it was not lodged within the period 
prescribed, the application itself is manifestly inadmissible (paragraphs 27 and 28). 
I-A - 148 
FERAL v COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS 
Operative part: 
The application is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible. 
I-A - 149