Order — ECLI:EU:F:2007:108
Date: 2007-06-20
Language of the case: French
Court formation: First Chamber
Based on: Merger Treaty (1965)
Subject matter: Staff regulations and employment conditions - EC
Concepts: Admissibility and examination of applications, forms of order sought and pleas in law;Specific cases of acts having adverse effect
Procedure: Staff cases - inadmissible;Action for damages - inadmissible

Summary 1. Officials – Actions – Act adversely affecting an individual – Definition (Staff Regulations, Art. 91; Council Regulation No 1365/75, Art. 17(2); Commission Regulation No 91/88) 2. Procedure – Application initiating proceedings – Formal requirements (Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 44(1)(c)) 1. Only acts producing binding legal effects capable of affecting, directly and individually, the interests of the parties concerned by bringing about a distinct change in their legal situation can be considered to affect them adversely. Moreover, certain decisions, even though they do not affect the pecuniary interests or rank of the official in question, may be regarded, in the light of the nature of the functions concerned and the circumstances, as acts adversely affecting that official if they adversely affect his non-pecuniary interests or future prospects. That does not apply to a letter from the Director of the European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions stating that he cannot grant the request of a former member of the temporary staff to withdraw her decision to resign. Such a letter does not affect the situation of the individual concerned under the Staff Regulations, since that situation has in fact been determined by her decision to resign, which took immediate effect. The legal situation of the individual concerned is also not changed by the fact that the Foundation explained, in the same letter, that she did not need documents from the administration in order to register with her national employment service. Furthermore, that explanation cannot be interpreted as a refusal on the part of the administration to release those documents. (see paras 39-43) See: 35/72 Kley v Commission [1973] ECR 679, paras 4 and 5; 125/80 Arning v Commission [1981] ECR 2539, para. 17; C-32/92 P Moat v Commission [1992] ECR I‑6379, para. 9; C-373/04 P Commission v Alvarez Moreno [2006] ECR I‑1*, para. 42 2. A claim for annulment of an application made by a former member of the temporary staff seeking to obtain, without going into detail and using imprecise terms, all the allowances and advantages, in other words the financial benefits, to which that person can lay claim by reason of her resignation, does not satisfy the conditions laid down by Article 44(1)(c) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance. (see paras 49-50) See: T-72/92 Benzler v Commission [1993] ECR II‑347, paras 16, 18 and 19