Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2000:58
Date: 2000-03-09
Language of the case: French
Court formation: Single Judge
Based on: Merger Treaty (1965)
Subject matter: Staff regulations and employment conditions - EC
Concepts: Administrative complaint;Grading;Internal directives
Procedure: Staff cases - unfounded

SUMMARY - CASE T-29/97 
Summary 
1. Officials - Actions — Action against the decision rejecting a complaint -
Time-limits - Action brought out of time on the basis of information provided by 
the institution - Excusable error - Effects - Maintenance of the period prescribed 
for bringing an action 
(Staff Regulations, Arts 90 and 91) 
2. Officials — Recruitment - Nomination in grade and classification in step — 
Internal directive of an institution on the applicable criteria - Legal effects -
Determination of the date chosen for the evaluation of professional experience as the 
date on which a post is offered — Whether permissible 
(Staff Regulations, Art. 31(2)) 
1. Failure to comply with the time-limits laid down in Article 90(2) of the Staff 
Regulations is not an obstacle to the admissibility of a prior administrative complaint 
or the action brought against the rejection of that complaint where the person 
concerned has made an excusable error. The concept of excusable error must be 
strictly construed and can cover only exceptional circumstances in which, in 
particular, the conduct of the institution concerned has been, either alone or to a 
decisive extent, such as to give rise to a pardonable confusion in the mind of a party 
acting in good faith and exercising all reasonable diligence. 
I-A - 44 
LIBÉROS v COMMISSION 
There is excusable error of a kind that will preserve the period prescribed for 
bringing an action where an action is brought out of time owing to incorrect 
information provided by the institution concerned which is likely to give rise to 
confusion on the part of the applicant. 
(see paras 30 to 32) 
See: T-33/89 and T-74/89 Blackmann v Parliament [1993] ECR II-249, paras 35 to 36; 
C-195/91 P Bayer v Commission [1994] ECR I-5619, paras 34 to 36; T-68/96 Polyvios 
v Commission [1998] ECR II-153, para. 43 
2. The exercise of the discretion conferred on the appointing authority by 
Article 31(2) of the Staff Regulations may be regulated by internal directives. There 
is nothing, in principle, to prevent the appointing authority from laying down, by 
means of an internal decision of a general nature, rules for the exercise of the 
discretion conferred on it by the Staff Regulations. Such a directive must be 
regarded as a guiding rule of conduct which the administration imposes on itself and 
from which it cannot depart without stating its reasons for doing so, under pain of 
infringing the principle of equal treatment. 
An internal decision of a general nature concerning classification in grade and step 
which expressly states that the date chosen for the purpose of calculating the 
professional experience taken into account for classification is the date on which the 
post is offered is consistent with the purposes of the Staff Regulations, both for 
administrative reasons and for substantive reasons. First, it is not possible to take 
account, when making an offer of employment, of any professional experience that 
may be acquired in the period between the date on which that offer is made and the 
date on which the candidate takes up his post. Second, there is normally very little 
time between the offer of employment being made and its being sent to the 
candidate or between its being sent and the offer being accepted or refused. Third, 
the time when the contract is signed and the time when the person concerned takes 
up his post are not generally very far apart. Last, to require the institution to 
I-A - 45 
SUMMARY - CASE T-29/97 
review the terms of the offer of employment after it had been accepted by the 
person concerned in order to take account of professional experience acquired 
between the time when the offer was made and the time when he actually takes up 
his post would allow him to postpone taking up his post in order to obtain a better 
classification, without objective reason or the possibility of effective control by the 
institution. 
(see paras 49 to 55) 
See: T-92/96 Monaco v Parliament [1997] ECR-SC I-A-195 and II-573, para. 46 
I-A - 46