Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2000:282
Date: 2000-12-05
Based on: Merger Treaty (1965)
Subject matter: Staff regulations and employment conditions - EC
Concepts: Prior administrative complaint;Effect of the outcome of the action for annulment;Vested rights;Revocation / Repeal
Procedure: Staff cases - successful

SUMMARY - CASE T-197/99 
Summary 
1. Officials - Actions - Prior administrative complaint - Requirement that 
subject-matter and grounds be the same - Pleas in law and arguments not 
appearing in the complaint, but closely linked to it - Argument raised by the 
appointing authority in its decision rejecting the complaint - Plea in law refuting 
that argument - Admissible 
(Staff Regulations, Arts 90 and 91) 
2. Acts of the institutions - Presumption of validity - Revocation - Lawful 
measure conferring individual rights - Unlawful 
3. Acts of the institutions - Revocation - Unlawful measures - Conditions -
Observance of the principle of protection of legitimate expectations - Burden of 
proof 
4. Officials - Non-contractual liability of the institutions - Conditions -
Unlawfulness - Damage - Causal link - Annulment of the contested decision not 
amounting to adequate compensation for the material damage 
5. Officials - Non-contractual liability of the institutions - Modification, with 
retroactive effect, of a lawful measure conferring individual rights - Administrative 
fault 
1. Although a complaint through administrative channels is an indispensable 
preliminary to bringing an action against an act adversely affecting a person to 
whom the Staff Regulations apply, it is not the function of that complaint to bind 
strictly and absolutely the judicial stage of the proceedings, provided that the claims 
submitted at the latter stage change neither the cause nor the subject-matter of the 
complaint. That applies to an action for the annulment of the decisions which gave 
rise to the complaint, in which the pleas in law relied on in support of the claim for 
annulment are closely linked to the grounds of challenge in the complaint. 
I-A - 272 
GOOCH v COMMISSION 
Even where a plea in law does not formally appear in a complaint through 
administrative channels, it may be considered to be closely linked to it provided that 
its purpose is only to refute an argument raised by the appointing authority in the 
decision rejecting the complaint. 
Since the appointing authority put forward its views on the matter in the course of 
the administrative procedure, the fact that the complaint is silent in that respect does 
not undermine the principles of legal certainty and observance of the rights of the 
defence underlying the rule of consistency between the administrative complaint and 
the appeal. 
(see paras 35, 38-40) 
See: T-78/96 and T-170/96 W v Commission [1998] ECR-SC I-A-239 and II-745, para. 
66; C-316/97 P Parliament v Gaspari [1998] ECR I-7597, paras 17 and 18 
2. In the absence of any evidence to call into question the legality of measures 
adopted by the Community institutions, such measures are presumed to be valid. 
The retroactive withdrawal of a legal measure which has conferred individual rights 
or similar benefits is contrary to the general principles of law. 
(see paras 51-52) 
See: 159/82 Verli-Wallace v Commission [1983] ECR 2711, para. 8; T-272/94 Brulant 
v Parliament [1996] ECR-SC I-A-513 and II-1397, para. 35; T-157/99 Griesel v Council 
[2000] ECR-SC I-A-151 and II-699, para. 25 
I-A - 273 
SUMMARY — CASE T-197/99 
3. Whilst any Community institution which finds that a measure which it has just 
adopted is tainted by illegality has the right to withdraw it within a reasonable 
period, with retroactive effect, such a right may be restricted by the need to fulfil 
the legitimate expectations of a beneficiary of the measure, who has been led to rely 
on the lawfulness thereof. 
In that regard, it is for the institution to prove that the revoked measure is unlawful. 
(see para. 53) 
See: 14/81 Alpha Steel v Commission [1982] ECR 749, para. 10; 15/85 Consorzio 
Cooperative d'Abruzzo v Commission [1987] ECR 1005, para. 12; C-248/89 Cargill v 
Commission [1991] ECR I-2987, para. 20; C-365/89 Cargill [1991] ECR I-3045, para. 
18; T-20/96 Pascali v Commission [1997] ECR-SC I-A-361 and II-977, para. 72 
4. The Community can only be held liable for damages if a number of conditions 
are satisfied as regards the illegality of the allegedly wrongful act committed by the 
institutions, the actual harm suffered, and the existence of a causal link between the 
act and the damage alleged to have been suffered. 
Where the damage suffered is material, annulment of the contested decision of itself 
constitutes neither adequate nor sufficient compensation for the damage suffered. 
(see paras 67, 71) 
See: 111/86 Delauche v Commission [1987] ECR 5345, para. 30; T-589/93 
Ryan-Sheridan v EFILWC [1996] ECR-SC I-A-27 and II-77, para. 141; T-141/97 Yasse 
v EIB [1999] ECR-SC I-A-177 and II-929, para. 140 
I-A - 274 
GOOCH v COMMISSION 
5. By modifying, with retroactive effect, a lawful measure conferring individual 
rights on an official, an institution is acting unlawfully and may be held liable for 
damages. 
(see para. 68) 
I-A - 275