Order — ECLI:EU:F:2014:37
Date: 2014-02-27
Language of the case: French
Court formation: Third Chamber
Based on: Merger Treaty (1965)
Subject matter: Staff regulations and employment conditions - EC
Procedure: Staff cases - inadmissible

Summary Judicial proceedings — Res judicata — Scope An action is held to be inadmissible on account of the res judicata attaching to an earlier judgment which settled a dispute between the same parties, had the same subject-matter and had been based on the same cause of action. In the assessment of whether such an earlier judgment exists, the act whose annulment is sought constitutes an essential factor which enables the subject-matter of an action to be characterised. However, the fact that the actions were directed against separate decisions which the administration formally adopted is not sufficient to support the conclusion that there is no identity of subject-matter, where those decisions have substantially the same content and are based on the same grounds. Where an applicant, as in the present case, challenges the legality of decisions which have become final, acceptance of the admissibility of his action would mean conferring on him the opportunity to revive for himself a right of appeal against those decisions and allow him to call into question the authority of res judicata attaching to earlier judgments relating to those decisions. As regards the alleged infringement of the right to a fair hearing in the event that the action is declared inadmissible, the contested decisions have become final only on account of inaction on the part of the applicant, who decided not to avail himself of the administrative or judicial remedies open to him. (see paras 40, 41, 48, 49) See: 19 September 1985, 172/83 and 226/83 Hoogovens Groep v Commission, para. 9; 27 October 1987, 146/85 and 431/85 Diezler and Others v ESC, paras 14 to 16 5 June 1996, T‑162/94 NMB France and Others v Commission, paras 37 and 38 25 June 2010, T‑66/01 Imperial Chemical Industries v Commission, para. 197 11 June 2009, F‑72/08 Ketselidis v Commission, para. 33; 25 February 2014, F‑118/11 Marcuccio v Commission, para. 54