Order — ECLI:EU:F:2010:21
Date: 2010-03-25
Language of the case: Italian
Court formation: First Chamber
Based on: Merger Treaty (1965)
Subject matter: Staff regulations and employment conditions - EC
Procedure: Staff cases

Summary 1. Officials — Actions — Actions for damages — Claim for annulment of a pre-litigation decision refusing a request for compensation (Staff Regulations, Arts 90 and 91) 2. Acts of the institutions — Presumption of validity — Non-existent act — Definition (Art. 249 CE) 3. Officials — Actions — Prior administrative complaint — Time-limits — Claim barred by lapse of time — Reopening — Condition — New and material fact (Staff Regulations, Arts 90 and 91) 1. An institution’s decision rejecting a claim for compensation forms an integral part of the preliminary administrative procedure which precedes an action to establish liability before the Civil Service Tribunal and, consequently, claims for annulment of it cannot be assessed in isolation from the claims relating to compensation. (see para. 23) See: T‑90/95 Gill v Commission [1997] ECR-SC I‑A‑471 and II‑1231, para. 45; T‑77/99 Ojha v Commission [2001] ECR-SC I‑A‑61 and II‑293, para. 68; T‑209/99 Hoyer v Commission [2002] ECR-SC I‑A‑243 and II‑1211, para. 32 2. Only acts tainted by irregularities which are particularly serious and obvious may be declared non-existent. The seriousness of the consequences resulting from a declaration that an act of an institution is non-existent demands that, for reasons of legal certainty, such a declaration be reserved for the most extreme situations. A decision of the Commission refusing to destroy documents which it has preserved on the ground that they constitute a guarantee enabling both the official concerned and the institution itself to check that all the official’s effects were dispatched to his new residence does not present any irregularities of that nature. (see paras 29, 32) See: 1/57 and 14/57 Société des usines à tubes de la Sarre v High Authority [1957 and 1958] ECR 105, 112; C‑137/92 P Commission v BASF and Others [1994] ECR I‑2555, para. 50; C‑475/01 Commission v Greece [2004] ECR I‑8923, para. 20 3. Although Article 90(1) of the Staff Regulations provides that any official may request the appointing authority to take a decision relating to him, that right does not allow an official to set aside the time-limits laid down in Articles 90 and 91 of the Staff Regulations for the lodging of a complaint and an appeal by indirectly calling in question by means of a request a previous decision which has not been challenged within the period prescribed. Only the existence of material new facts may justify the submission of a request for a review of such a decision. (see para. 36) See: 127/84 Esly v Commission [1985] ECR 1437, para. 10