Judgment — ECLI:EU:F:2010:166
Date: 2010-12-14
Language of the case: Italian
Court formation: Single Judge
Based on: Merger Treaty (1965)
Subject matter: Staff regulations and employment conditions - EC
Procedure: Staff cases - inadmissible;Staff cases - successful

Summary 1. Officials — Actions — Act adversely affecting an official — Definition — Note from the administration informing the official concerned of its intention to consider his request — Not included (Staff Regulations, Arts 73, 90 and 91) 2. Procedure — Objection of lis pendens 3. Officials — Decision adversely affecting an official — Obligation to state the reasons on which the decision is based (Staff Regulations, Art. 25, second para.) 1. An act adversely affecting an official is one which produces binding legal effects capable of directly and immediately affecting an official’s interests by bringing about a distinct change in his legal position; such an act must come from the competent authority and include a definitive position adopted by the administration. A reply by which the administration informs the person concerned that his request is being considered does not, therefore, constitute an act adversely affecting him. Information provided by a Settlements Office of the Joint Sickness Insurance Scheme regarding an application for the reimbursement of medical expenses which reveals that a decision is to be taken subsequently also does not fulfil the definition of an act adversely affecting the person concerned. (see paras 46-47) See: T-38/91 Coussios v Commission [1991] ECR II-763, para. 31; T-33/89 and T‑74/89 Blackman v Parliament [1993] ECR II‑249, paras 27, 29 and 30; T-46/90 Devillez and Others v Parliament [1993] ECR II‑699, paras 13 and 14; T-183/95 Carraro v Commission [1998] ECR-SC I‑A‑123 and II‑329, paras 19 to 22; T‑66/96 and T-221/97 Mellett v Court of Justice [1998] ECR-SC I‑A‑449 and II‑1305, para. 83 F‑101/05 Grünheid v Commission [2006] ECR-SC I‑A‑1‑55 and II‑A‑1‑199, para. 33 and the case-law cited therein; F‑52/06 Pimlott v Europol [2007] ECR‑SC I‑A‑1‑395 and II‑A‑1‑2197, para. 50; F‑106/07 Giaprakis v Committee of the Regions [2009] ECR-SC I‑A‑1‑53 and II‑A‑1‑231, para. 43 2. An action brought by the same applicant as an action brought previously, directed against the refusal by the same institution to recognise his medical conditions as serious illnesses, and based on the same pleas in law, is inadmissible on the grounds of lis pendens and must thus be dismissed. (see paras 53-54) See: 58/72 and 75/72 Perinciolo v Council [1973] ECR 511, paras 3 to 5; 172/83 and 226/83 Hoogovens Groep v Commission [1985] ECR 2831, para. 9 Judgment of 14 June 2007 in T-68/07 Landtag Schleswig-Holstein v Commission, not published in the ECR, para. 16 F‑80/06 Duyster v Commission [2008] ECR-SC I‑A‑1‑7 and II‑A‑1‑15, para. 52 3. It is only where the contested decision contained at least the initial elements of a statement of reasons before the action was brought that the administration is entitled to provide additional information during the proceedings and fulfil its obligation to state the reasons on which the decision was based. That possibility is not available in the case of an implied decision, vitiated by a total absence of a statement of reasons, rejecting a claim for reimbursement of medical expenses associated with an occupational disease. (see para. 65) See: T-37/89 Hanning v Parliament [1990] ECR II‑463, paras 41 and 44