Order — ECLI:EU:F:2014:175
Date: 2014-06-25
Language of the case: French
Court formation: Third Chamber
Based on: Merger Treaty (1965)
Subject matter: Staff regulations and employment conditions - EC;Procedural provisions
Procedure: Staff cases;Action for damages;Application as to costs

Summary 1. Officials — Actions — Interest in bringing proceedings (Staff Regulations, Arts 90 and 91) 2. Officials — Actions — Claim for compensation linked to a claim for annulment (Staff Regulations, Arts 90 and 91) 3. Officials — Actions — Action for damages brought without a prelitigation procedure in accordance with the Staff Regulations — Inadmissibility (Staff Regulations, Arts 90 and 91) 1. In order for an official or former official to be able validly to bring proceedings under Articles 90 and 91 of the Staff Regulations, he must have a personal interest in the annulment of the contested measure. Moreover, assessment of that interest in bringing proceedings must be made not in the abstract, but with regard to the situation of the applicant at the time when proceedings are brought. In so far as a staff member’s job description only affects his interests, as a rule, while he is employed in that post, an action for annulment of a decision amending that job description, brought by the staff member after his employment in that post has ceased, is inadmissible except where the applicant can prove that there are special circumstances justifying a current, personal interest in bringing proceedings for that purpose. (see paras 25, 27) See: T‑97/94 N v Commission [1998] ECR‑SC I‑A‑621 and II‑1879, paras 23 and 26; T‑200/03 and T‑313/03 V v Commission [2006] ECR‑SC I‑A‑2‑15 and II‑A‑2‑57, para. 181 F‑3/05 Schmit v Commission [2006] ECR‑SC I‑A‑1‑9 and II‑A‑1‑33, paras 41 and 42; F‑114/05 Combescot v Commission [2006] ECR‑SC I‑A‑1‑115 and II‑A‑1‑435, paras 44 and 46; F‑44/05 Strack v Commission [2008] ECR‑SC I‑A‑1‑303 and II‑A‑1‑1609, para. 74 2. In actions brought by officials, a claim for compensation for damage must be rejected where it is closely related to a claim for annulment which has itself been rejected either as inadmissible or as unfounded. (see para. 33) See: T‑1/91 Della Pietra v Commission [1992] ECR II‑2145, para. 34; T‑330/03 Liakoura v Council [2004] ECR‑SC I‑A‑191 and II‑859, para. 69; T‑73/05 Magone v Commission [2006] ECR‑SC I‑A‑2‑107 and II‑A‑2‑485, para. 103 F‑5/06 E v Commission [2006] ECR‑SC I‑A‑1‑93 and II‑A‑1‑337, para. 57; F‑104/06 Arpaillange and Others v Commission [2009] ECR‑SC I‑A‑1‑57 and II‑A‑1‑273, para. 137 3. Where the alleged damage does not arise out of the act whose annulment is sought but from a series of alleged wrongful acts and omissions on the part of the administration, it is mandatory that the pre-litigation procedure should commence with a request for the appointing authority to make good that damage. (see para. 39) See: T‑17/90, T‑28/91 and T‑17/92 Camara Alloisio and Others v Commission [1993] ECR II‑841, para. 47; T‑25/03 de Stefano v Commission [2005] ECR‑SC I‑A‑125 and II‑573, para. 78 Schmit v Commission, para. 48