Order — ECLI:EU:F:2007:68
Date: 2007-04-20
Language of the case: French
Court formation: First Chamber
Based on: Merger Treaty (1965)
Subject matter: Staff regulations and employment conditions - EC
Concepts: General;Administrative complaint
Procedure: Staff cases - inadmissible

Summary 1. Procedure – Decision taken by reasoned order – Conditions (Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 111; Council Decision 2004/752, Art. 3(4)) 2. Officials – Actions – Prior administrative complaint – Time-limits (Staff Regulations, Art. 90(2)) 1. The situation of manifest inadmissibility referred to in Article 111 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance does not apply solely in cases where the failure to observe the rules on admissibility is so clear and flagrant that no reasonable argument can be relied on in favour of admissibility, but also in cases where, upon reading the file, the Court hearing the case, provided that it considers itself to be sufficiently informed by the documents before it, is entirely convinced of the inadmissibility of the application, in particular because that application fails to observe the requirements laid down by settled case-law, and it further considers that the holding of a hearing would be unlikely to provide any new information whatsoever in that respect. In such a case, the dismissal of the application by means of an order not only benefits procedural economy, but also saves the parties the costs entailed by the holding of a hearing. (see paras 20-21) See: F-87/06 Manté v Council [2007] ECR-SC I-A-1-000 and II-A-1-000, para. 16 2. The notification of a decision of the administration to a person able to represent the official, such as his or her spouse, sets running the limitation period of three months laid down in Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations. The date on which the official actually learns of the decision, which depends on uncertain circumstances of a private nature, unconnected with the diligence with which the administration has notified the decision and which it would not be able to substantiate, is irrelevant here. (see paras 30, 32) See: T-196/95 H v Commission [1997] ECR-SC I‑A‑133 and II‑403, paras 32 to 35