Order — ECLI:EU:T:2001:180
Date: 2001-07-06
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
Procedure: Action for damages - inadmissible;Staff cases - decision unnecessary

SUMMARY - CASE T-161/00 
Summary 
Procedure - Application initiating proceedings - Subject-matter of the proceedings 
— Amendment in the course of the proceedings — Permissible in certain 
circumstances — Matters of fact or of law coming to light in the course of the 
procedure - Obligation to follow the pre-litigation procedure in staff cases 
(Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 48(2); Staff Regulations, 
Arts 90 and 91) 
Article 48(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, under which 
new pleas in law may be introduced in the course of proceedings if they are based 
on matters of law or of fact which come to light in the course of the procedure, may 
be applied, in certain cases, to the amendment of pleadings. By virtue of the 
requirements of procedural economy, when the contested act is replaced, in the 
course of proceedings, by an act having the same subject-matter, the latter 
constitutes a new factor enabling the applicants to amend their pleadings. 
Although it is therefore possible that, in exceptional cases, new pleadings may be 
admissible where they seek the annulment of a decision which, in the course of the 
procedure, replaces a decision having the same subject-matter, that cannot constitute 
a legitimate basis for reviewing the legality of a decision against which an action for 
annulment would be premature and therefore inadmissible. 
I-A - 156 
TSARNAVAS v COMMISSION 
In that regard, where, in response to a complaint, the appointing authority 
withdraws a decision not to promote an official, has his case reconsidered by the 
competent authorities in the light of certain factors which were not known at the 
time of adoption of the first decision, and then adopts a new decision, that new 
decision may not be challenged in court proceedings without having been the 
subject-matter of a pre-litigation procedure. 
(see paras 26-27, 30, 32) 
See: 14/81 Alpha Steel v Commission [1982] ECR 749, para. 8; 103/85 Stahlwerke 
Peine-Salzgitter v Commission [1988] ECR 4131, para. 11; T-161/95 Lino Liao v 
Council, not published in ECR, para. 30; T-23/96 De Persio v Commission [1998] 
ECR-SC I-A-483 and II-1413, para. 31 
I-A - 157