Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2001:64
Date: 2001-02-22
Language of the case: French
Court formation: Fifth Chamber
Based on: Merger Treaty (1965)
Subject matter: Staff regulations and employment conditions - EC
Concepts: Effect of the outcome of the action for annulment;Correspondence between the action and the complaint;General
Procedure: Staff cases - unfounded;Staff cases - inadmissible;Action for damages - inadmissible

SUMMARY — CASET-144/00 
Summary 
1. Officials - Actions - Prior administrative complaint - Subject-matter -
Application to the Court in conformity with the complaint - Head of claim not 
included in the complaint - Inadmissibility 
(Staff Regulations, Arts 90 and 91) 
2. Officials - Actions - Action for damages directly linked to an action for 
annulment - Admissibility notwithstanding the absence of pre-litigation procedure 
in accordance with the Staff Regulations 
(Staff Regulations, Arts 90 and 91) 
3. Officials - Salary - Amendment on promotion - Not possible to reduce basic 
salary — Scope 
(Staff Regulations, Arts 46, second para., and 91) 
1. The admissibility of actions brought by officials is contingent upon their 
compliance with the pre-litigation procedure, the purpose of which is to permit an 
amicable settlement of the differences which have arisen between officials or 
servants and the administration. In order that such a procedure may fulfil its 
purpose, it is necessary for the appointing authority to know in sufficient detail the 
criticisms made of the contested decision by those concerned. Consequently, any 
head of claim which was not relied on in the administrative complaint, although the 
official concerned was in a position to rely on it, must be rejected as inadmissible. 
(see para. 25) 
See: T-588/93 G v Commission [1994] ECR-SCI-A-277 and II-875, para. 27; T-242/97 
Z v Parliament [1999] ECR-SC I-A-77 and II-401, para. 58 
I-A - 46 
TIRELLI v PARLIAMENT 
2. Where there is a direct link between an action for annulment and an action for 
damages, the action for damages is admissible as being ancillary to the action for 
annulment, without necessarily having to be preceded by a request to the appointing 
authority for compensation for the damage allegedly suffered and a complaint 
challenging the correctness of the implied or express decision rejecting the request. 
(see para. 29) 
See: T-78/96 and T-170/96 W. v Commission [1998] ECR-SC I-A-239 and II-745, para. 
157 
3. Article 62 of the Staff Regulations provides that remuneration is to comprise 
basic salary, family allowances and other allowances. According to that article there 
is a clear distinction between the terms 'basic salary' and 'allowances'. 
The rule in the second paragraph of Article 46 of the Staff Regulations, that an 
official appointed to a higher grade is in no case to receive a basic salary lower than 
that which he would have received in his former grade, is not applicable to the 
salary of an official as a whole as defined in Article 62, since it refers only to the 
basic salary. 
(see paras 38, 40) 
I-A - 47