Judgment — ECLI:EU:F:2013:184
Date: 2013-11-21
Language of the case: French
Court formation: Second Chamber
Based on: Merger Treaty (1965)
Subject matter: Staff regulations and employment conditions - EC
Procedure: Staff cases - unfounded;Action for damages - unfounded;Action for damages - inadmissible

Summary 1. Officials — Recovery of undue payments — Conditions — Patent overpayment — Criteria (Staff Regulations, Art. 85) 2. Actions brought by officials — Conditions for admissibility — Objection of lis pendens — Actions for damages — Identical claim for compensation in a previous action found inadmissible — No lis pendens 1. As regards the recovery of undue payments, the phrase ‘patently such’ relating to overpayment within the meaning of the first paragraph of Article 85 of the Staff Regulations does not mean that an official who receives undue payments need make no effort to reflect or check but rather that recovery is due where the error is one which does not escape the notice of an official exercising ordinary care, who is deemed to know the rules governing his salary. Furthermore, account must be taken in each case of the ability of the official concerned to make the necessary checks. The factors taken into consideration by the Union judicature in this regard concern in particular the official’s level of responsibility, and his grade and seniority. Furthermore, it is not necessary for the official or member of the temporary staff concerned, in the exercise of his duty of diligence, to be able to determine the precise extent of the error made by the administration. The fact that he has doubts about the validity of the payments in question is sufficient for him to be obliged to contact the administration so that it can carry out the necessary checks. (see paras 48-50) See: 5 November 2002, T‑205/01 Ronsse v Commission, paras 46 and 47; 29 September 2005, T‑195/03 Thommes v Commission, para. 124 2. Where an action has parties, subject-matter and pleas in law which are identical to those of an action which was lodged previously, it must be dismissed as inadmissible. If claims for compensation made in an action brought previously were held to be inadmissible on the ground that they had been submitted prematurely, the Civil Service Tribunal cannot be regarded as having exhausted its competence regarding identical claims for compensation made in an action brought subsequently. (see paras 86-87) See: 19 September 2006, F‑22/06 Vienne and Others v Parliament, para. 12 and the case-law cited therein