Order — ECLI:EU:T:1998:153
Date: 1998-07-07
Language of the case: French
Court formation: First Chamber
Based on: Merger Treaty (1965)
Subject matter: Staff regulations and employment conditions - EC
Concepts: Organization of departments;Specific cases of acts having adverse effect;Effect of the outcome of the action for annulment;General
Procedure: Staff cases - unfounded;Staff cases - inadmissible

ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (First Chamber) 
7 July 1998 
Case T-178/97 
Albano Moneada 
v 
Commission of the European Communities 
(Officials - Deputising for a superior - Action manifestly inadmissible and not 
well founded in law) 
Full text in French II - 989 
Application for: first, annulment of the Commission decision of 12 August 
1996 directing a colleague in a lower grade than the 
applicant to deputise during the absences of his superior 
and, second, damages. 
Decision: Application dismissed. 
I-A - 339 
ABSTRACT - CASE T-178/97 
Abstract of the Order 
The applicant entered the Commission's service on 1 September 1988 as a Grade 
A 4 official. He was posted to Unit 3 'accounting and auditing' of Directorate E 
'Euratom Safeguards Directorate' of the Directorate-General for Energy (DG XVII) 
(Unit E.3), in Luxembourg. 
Mr Haas, head of sector B 'data evaluation' of that unit, asked one of the 
applicant's colleagues, Mr Isebaert, to deputise for him during his absence between 
18 and 29 July and 9 and 16 September 1994. The applicant requested his head of 
unit, Mr Bevere, to state the reasons on which these decisions were based, in the 
light of the first paragraph of Article 23 of the Rules of Procedure of the 
Commission of 17 February 1993 (Rules of Procedure of the Commission), which 
provides that '[s]ave as otherwise decided by the Commission, where any superior 
is prevented from exercising his functions, his place shall be taken by the 
longest-serving subordinate present, or (in the event of equal length of service) by 
the person who is the senior by age, in the highest category and grade'. 
His requests for explanations met with no response. 
Mr Bevere appointed Mr Reeff to deputise for him during his absence on 3 and 4 
August 1995. By memorandum to Mr Bevere the applicant challenged that decision 
and referred to his earlier objections; he still maintained that there had been a 
breach of Article 23 of the Rules of Procedure of the Commission. That step met 
with no response. 
I-A - 340 
MOSCADA v COMMISSION 
By decision of the appointing authority of 3 June 1996 Mr Martin, a grade A 5 
official, was appointed head of sector B of unit E.3. 
Mr Bevere appointed Mr Martin to deputise for him during his absence on 16 and 
20 August 1996. The applicant challenged that decision under Article 23 of the 
Rules of Procedure of the Commission, by memorandum of 20 August 1996 to the 
Director of Directorate E of DG XVII, Mr Gmelin. His memorandum met with no 
response. 
On 12 November 1996 the applicant lodged a complaint under Article 90(2) of the 
Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communities (Staff Regulations) 
against that decision. The complaint was rejected by an implied decision on 12 
March 1997. 
Law 
Under Article 111 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, as 
amended with effect from 1 June 1997, where an action is manifestly inadmissible 
or manifestly lacking any foundation in law, the Court may, without taking further 
steps in the proceedings, determine the matter by reasoned order. In the present 
case the Court considers that it has sufficient information from the documents before 
it and decides, pursuant to Article 111, that there is no need to take further steps in 
the proceedings (paragraphs 15 and 16). 
I-A - 341 
ABSTRACT - CASE T-178/97 
Claim for annulment 
Under Article 91 of the Staff Regulations only an act adversely affecting the official 
concerned can form the subject-matter of an appeal. The only acts which may be 
regarded as adversely affecting an official are those which are capable of directly 
affecting his position in law and thus go beyond measures which, concerning only 
the internal organisation of departments, do not adversely affect the position of the 
official concerned under the Staff Regulations (paragraphs 31 and 32). 
See: T-33/89 and T-74/89Blackman v Parliament [1993] ECR11-249, para. 27; T-50/92Morani 
v Parliament [1993] ECR 11-555, para. 29 
Furthermore, only special circumstances which provided the grounds for measures 
of internal organisation may render an appeal against such measures admissible. 
That may be the case where the decision in question is in the nature of a covert 
penalty, where it discloses an intention to discriminate against the official concerned 
or where it is vitiated by a misuse of powers (paragraph 33). 
See: T-69/92 Seghers v Council [1993] ECR 11-651, para. 38 
The applicant claims that as the longest-serving subordinate and the one in the 
highest grade in his unit he is entitled to deputise for his superior in the latter's 
absence. 
The first paragraph of Article 23 of the Rules of Procedure of the Commission 
refers to the arrangements for a replacement where a superior is absent and 
therefore contains a rule concerning the organisation of departments. It provides 
the Commission with criteria which serve as guidelines for choosing the most 
appropriate subordinate to carry out the duties of the absent superior where no 
replacement has been organised. The provision is therefore also in the nature of a 
I-A - 342 
MOSCADA v COMMISSION 
fall-back. It is designed to protect the interests of the proper internal administration 
of the Commission's departments, in particular those connected with the continuity 
of the duties of an absent superior, and not the interests of an official who meets the 
conditions which it lays down. It does not create a right or even a legally protected 
interest in favour of an official who meets the conditions to deputise for his 
superior. 
The applicant cannot therefore derive from that provision a right or a legally 
protected interest capable of being affected by the impugned decision. 
Consequently, the decision cannot be described as an act susceptible of directly 
affecting the applicant's position in law which the Court can be requested to annul. 
Any interest which the applicant may have in the application of the abovementioned 
provision can lie only in the proper application of the law. However, an official is 
not entitled to act in the interests of the law or of the institutions and may put 
forward, in support of an action for annulment, only such claims as relate to him 
personally (paragraph 39). 
See: T-163/89 Sebastiani v Parliament [1991] ECR 11-715, para. 24 
The claim for annulment is therefore inadmissible, since it is directed against an act 
which does not adversely affect the applicant. 
I-A - 343 
ABSTRACT - CASE T-178/97 
In any event, the criteria laid down in the.first paragraph of Article 23 of the Rules 
of Procedure of the Commission operate only where no arrangements have been 
made for a replacement and therefore constitute a fall-back. Since in the present 
case the Commission arranged for a replacement for the absent superior those 
criteria are not applicable. 
The claims for annulment are therefore also unfounded in law. 
Claim for damages 
Actions for annulment and damages are two autonomous actions and the fact that 
an application for annulment is inadmissible does not in itself render a claim for 
damages inadmissible. An exception to that rule arises where the action for 
damages 'is actually aimed at securing withdrawal of an individual decision and, if 
upheld, would have the effect of cancelling the legal effects ofthat decision'. Since 
that is not so in the present case, the fact that the action for annulment is 
inadmissible does not render the action for damages inadmissible (paragraph 47). 
See: T-514/93 Cobrecafand Others v Commission [1995] ECR 11-621, para. 58; T-93/95Lag« 
v Commission [1998] ECR 11-195, para. 48 
Where the Court rejects a claim for annulment as inadmissible on the ground that 
there has been no act adversely affecting the person concerned, however, a claim 
for damages must also be rejected in so far as the applicant claims that the harm in 
respect of which damages are claimed was caused by an act adversely affecting him. 
I-A - 344 
MONCADA v COMMISSION 
The claim for compensation must therefore be rejected. 
Consequently, the action must be rejected in its entirety. 
Operative part: 
The application is dismissed. 
I-A - 345