Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2018:645
Date: 2018-10-04
Language of the case: French
Court formation: Eighth Chamber
Based on: Merger Treaty (1965)
Subject matter: Staff regulations and employment conditions - EC
Procedure: Staff cases - inadmissible;Action for damages - inadmissible

Summary — Judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber), 4 October 2018 1. Actions brought by officials — Action against a decision rejecting a complaint — Effect — Disputed measure referred to the Court — Exception — Decision not confirmatory in character (Staff Regulations of Officials, Arts 90 and 91) 2. Actions brought by officials — Defendant — Mistaken designation of the defendant in the application — Inadmissibility (Staff Regulations of Officials, Arts 2 and 91a) 3. Actions brought by officials — Application for damages linked to an application for annulment — Dismissal of claim for annulment leading to dismissal of the claim for compensation (Staff Regulations of Officials, Art. 91) 4. Judicial proceedings — Costs — Order that the successful party bear its own costs and pay those of the applicant (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 135(2)) 1. See the text of the decision. (see para. 20) 2. It follows from Article 2 of the Staff Regulations, first, that the appointing authority acts in the name of the institution which designated it, so that acts concerning the legal position of officials and which may adversely affect them must be attributed to the institution to which they are attached and, secondly, that any appeal must be brought against the institution from which the act having an adverse effect emanated. In the present case there is no doubt that the contested decision was adopted by the Office for Infrastructure and Logistics — Luxembourg (OIL). It follows from a combined reading of the applicable legislation and, in particular, Article 91a of the Staff Regulations that the Commission, not the Parliament, is the defendant in an action against a decision of the OIL. Accordingly, the claims for annulment are inadmissible since they were not directed against the Commission. (see paras 29, 30, 35) 3. See the text of the decision. (see para. 36) 4. See the text of the decision. (see paras 40-43)