Order — ECLI:EU:F:2011:131
Date: 2011-09-12
Language of the case: French
Court formation: Third Chamber
Based on: Merger Treaty (1965)
Subject matter: Staff regulations and employment conditions - EC
Procedure: Staff cases - inadmissible

Summary Officials – Actions – Action brought against a refusal to reconsider a definitive decision – Admissibility – Condition (Staff Regulations, Arts 90 and 91) A decision which has not been challenged by the person to whom it is addressed within the prescribed period becomes definitive as against that person. However, the existence of substantial new facts may justify the submission of a request for reconsideration of an earlier decision which has become definitive. An action brought against a decision refusing to reconsider a decision which has become definitive will be declared admissible if it appears that the request for reconsideration was actually based on substantial new facts. On the other hand, if it appears that the request was not based on such facts, the action against the decision refusing to reconsider the earlier decision must be dismissed as inadmissible. The legal effects of a judgment annulling a measure relate, other than to the parties, only to persons directly concerned by the annulled measure itself and such a judgment can constitute a new fact only with respect to those persons. Furthermore, a decision which is not issued by the institution employing the person concerned, but by another institution, cannot be regarded as a substantial new fact either. In that regard, although, according to the principle of a single civil service, as laid down in Article 9(3) of the Treaty of Amsterdam, all the officials of all the institutions of the Union are governed by the same provisions, such a principle does not mean that the institutions are required to make identical use of the discretion afforded to them by the Staff Regulations given that, on the contrary, in the management of their staff, the institutions enjoy a ‘principle of autonomy’. (see paras 19, 20, 23-25) See: 26 September 1985, 231/84 Valentini v Commission, para. 14; 8 March 1988, 125/87 Brown v Court of Justice, para. 13 16 September 1997, T‑220/95 Gimenez v Committee of the Regions, para. 72; 24 March 1998, T‑232/97 Becret-Danieau and Others v Parliament, para. 43; 7 February 2001, T‑186/98 Inpesca v Commission, paras 40, 47 and 48; 16 September 2009, T‑271/08 P Boudova and Others v Commission, para. 48