Order — ECLI:EU:T:2001:264
Date: 2001-11-13
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: Staff cases;Application for interim measures;Application for a rectification order - inadmissible

SUMMARY - CASE T-138/01 
Summary 
1. Officials - Organisation of departments - Assignment of staff - Compromise 
giving the official precise assurances that he will be assigned to a particular 
department - Reassignment in the interest of the service on the basis of 
circumstances already known at the time when the compromise is agreed - Breach 
of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations 
(Staff Regulations, Art. 7) 
2. Officials - Appeals - Action for compensation introduced without a prior 
administrative procedure in accordance with the Staff Regulations - Inadmissibility 
(Staff Regulations, Arts 90 and 91) 
3. Officials — Appeals — Claim for damages - Annulment of the contested 
unlawful measure — Adequate compensation for non-material damage 
(Staff Regulations, Art. 91) 
1. The right to claim protection of legitimate expectations extends to any individual 
who is in a situation in which it appears that the Community administration has, by 
giving him precise assurances, led him to entertain reasonable expectations. 
Thus, where the administration agrees a compromise with an official, giving him 
precise assurances concerning his assignment to one of its departments, it undertakes 
to take all reasonable measures to enable the official concerned to remain in that 
post in so far as that is compatible with the interests of the service. Therefore, 
although the official cannot base legitimate expectations as to the permanence of his 
assignment on that compromise, since that would place unacceptable limits on the 
freedom of the institutions to organise their departments and to adapt them as their 
I-A - 26 
F v COURT OF AUDITORS 
needs change, the administration breaches the official's legitimate expectations by 
reassigning him on the basis of matters or circumstances that were already known 
when the compromise was agreed and that could therefore have been taken into 
account when the decision concerning his assignment was taken, which, as long as 
its validity is not disputed, is presumed to have been taken in accordance with the 
interests of the service. It follows that the administration may deem it to be contrary 
to those interests for the official to remain in the post only on the basis of matters 
or circumstances which arose after that decision was taken. 
(see paras 40-47) 
See: 161/80 and 162/81 Carbognaniand Coda Zabetta v Commission [1981 ] ECR 543. 
para. 18; T-205/01 Ronsse v Commission [2002] ECR-SC I-A-211 and II-1065, para. 54; 
T-102/95Aubineau v Commission [1996] ECR-SC I-A-357 and II-1053. paras 29 and 31 
2. It is only where there is a direct link between an action for annulment and a 
claim for compensation that the latter is admissible as ancillary to the action for 
annulment, without necessarily having to be preceded both by a request from the 
person concerned to the appointing authority for compensation for the damage 
allegedly suffered and by a complaint challenging the validity of the implied or 
express rejection of that request. However, where the damage alleged does not stem 
from an act whose annulment is sought, but from several wrongful acts or omissions 
alleged against the administration, it is imperative that the pre-litigation procedure 
should be initiated by a request that the appointing authority compensate for that 
damage and continued, where appropriate, by a complaint made against the decision 
to reject the request. 
(see para. 57) 
See: T-17/90, T-28/91 and T-17/92 Camara Alloisio and Others v Commission [1993] 
ECR II-841, para. 47; T-74/01 Ferrer de Moneada v Commission [2002] ECR-SC I-A-87 
and II-411. para. 69 
I-A - 27 
SUMMARY — CASE T-138/01 
3. The annulment of the act of the administration contested by an official in itself 
constitutes appropriate and, in principle, sufficient reparation for any non-material 
harm which the official may have suffered as a result of the act annulled. 
(see para. 69) 
See: C-343/87 Culin v Commission [1990] ECR I-225, paras 25-29; T-89/01 Willeme v 
Commission [2002] ECR-SC I-A-153 and II-803, para. 97 
I-A - 28