Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2001:167
Date: 2001-06-20
Based on: Merger Treaty (1965)
Subject matter: Staff regulations and employment conditions - EC
Concepts: Act adversely affecting the official;Scope of judicial review;Principle of the protection of legitimate expectations
Procedure: Staff cases - unfounded;Staff cases - inadmissible;Action for damages - successful

SUMMARY — CASE T-243/99 
Summary 
1. Officials — Actions — Act adversely affecting the person concerned - Decision 
taken following reconsideration of an earlier decision — Decision adopted by a 
competition selection board after reconsideration as provided for by the notice of 
competition 
(Staff Regulations, Art. 90(2)) 
2. Officials - Actions - Act adversely affecting the person concerned - Decision 
taken following reconsideration of an earlier decision and taking account of new 
facts — Decision not confirmatory 
(Staff Regulations, Arts 90 and 91) 
3. Officiais — Actions — Subject-matter — Directions issued to the administration 
— Inadmissibility 
(Staff Regulations, Art. 91) 
4. Officials — Principles — Protection of legitimate expectations — Conditions 
1. Since a request for reconsideration addressed to the chairman of the competition 
selection board may be regarded as a request for reconsideration in accordance with 
the notice of competition, it falls within a procedural framework which the 
institution has undertaken to abide by and which is therefore binding on it. 
Consequently, it is not the original decision but the decision following the 
reconsideration provided for which must be regarded as the act adversely affecting 
the applicant. 
(see paras 29-30) 
I-A - 132 
BUISSON v COMMISSION 
2. Since a letter from the chairman of the selection board expresses for the first time 
its position, taking account of a new fact put forward by the person concerned, the 
decision contained in that letter has been taken after genuine reconsideration and 
cannot be classed as a purely confirmatory act. 
(see paras 31, 32) 
See: T-186/98 Inpesca v Commission [2001] ECR II-557 
3. A claim in an action for annulment brought under Article 91 of the Staff 
Regulations that a Community institution should be ordered to adopt certain 
measures is inadmissible. The Court of First Instance may not, in the exercise of its 
jurisdiction, issue directions to the Community institutions or assume the role 
assigned to them, since the jurisdiction of the Community judicature is limited to 
reviewing the legality of the contested measure. 
(see para. 37) 
See: T-145/98 ADT Projekt v Commission [2000] ECR II-387, paras 83 and 84 
4. The right to rely on the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations, 
which is one of the fundamental principles of the Community, extends to any 
individual in a situation where the Community administration, by giving him precise 
assurances, has led him to entertain reasonable expectations. 
(see para. 45) 
See: T-66/96 and T-221/97 Mellett v Court of Justice [1998] ECR-SC I-A-449 and 
II-1305, para. 104 
I-A - 133