Order — ECLI:EU:T:2002:231
Date: 2002-09-27
Based on: Merger Treaty (1965)
Subject matter: Staff regulations and employment conditions - EC
Concepts: Administrative complaint;Time-limits
Procedure: Staff cases - inadmissible

SUMMARY — CASE T-254/01 
Summary 
1. Officials - Actions - Prior administrative complaint — Time-limits - Point 
from which time starts to run - Burden of proof 
(Staff Regulations, Arts 90(2) and 91(3)) 
2. Officials - Actions - Prior administrative complaint - Definition -
Classification a matter for the Court 
(Staff Regulations, Art. 90(2)) 
1. The time-limits, prescribed by Articles 90 and 91 of the Staff Regulations, of 
three months for lodging a complaint against an act adversely affecting an official 
and three months for bringing an action following an express or implied decision 
rejecting the complaint are a matter of public policy and are not subject to the 
discretion of the parties or the Court, since they were established in order to ensure 
that legal positions are clear and certain. 
However, it is for the party alleging that a period has been exceeded to adduce 
proof of the date from which that period started to run, the absence of which cannot 
be compensated for by a series of circumstantial factors suggesting that a letter was 
received by the applicant on a date earlier than that alleged by him. 
(see paras 22, 25-27) 
See: T-1/90 Mérez-Mínguez Casariego v Commission [1991] ECR II-143, para. 37 
I-A - 178 
DI PIETRO v COURT OF AUDITORS 
2. The precise legal classification of a letter is a matter for the Court alone and not 
for the parties. A letter from an official which does not expressly request the 
withdrawal of a decision but is clearly intended to achieve an amicable settlement 
of his complaints or a letter which clearly expresses the official's intention to 
challenge the decision which adversely affects him constitutes a complaint within the 
meaning of Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations. 
A letter containing no reference to Article 90 of the Staff Regulations and no 
mention of the word 'complaint' and in which its author does not in any way 
challenge the lawfulness of an appointment decision, but merely raises a series of 
questions and requests the production of certain documents, cannot be deemed to be 
a complaint within the meaning of that provision. 
(see paras 28, 30, 32-33) 
See: T-14/91 Weyrich v Commission [1991] ECR II-235, para. 39; T-18/91 Costacuria 
v Commission [1992] ECR II-1655, para. 18; T-205/95 Cordiale v Parliament [1998] 
ECR-SC I-A-177 and II-551, para. 34; T-219/97 Brems v Parliament [1998] ECR-SC 
I-A-381 and II-1095, paras 45 and 46 
I-A - 179