Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2000:86
Date: 2000-03-23
Language of the case: French
Court formation: Fourth Chamber
Based on: Merger Treaty (1965)
Subject matter: Staff regulations and employment conditions - EC
Concepts: Unlimited jurisdiction;Administrative complaint;Mandatory nature;Appointment;Sufficient compensation provided by annulment of the act
Procedure: Staff cases - inadmissible;Action for damages - successful;Staff cases - successful

SUMMARY - CASET-197/98 
Held: The Commission's decision of 17 November 1997 
declaring the applicant's pre-recruitment medical 
examination void and requiring her to undergo a further 
medical examination in order to ascertain her physical 
fitness is annulled. The Commission is ordered to pay the 
applicant the sums corresponding to arrears in salary plus 
interest at the rate of 5.5% per annum from the date on 
which her salary ceased to be paid. The Commission is 
ordered to pay the applicant EUR 5 000 by way of 
compensation for non-material harm. The remainder of 
the application is dismissed. The applicant is ordered to 
bear 10% of her own costs. The Commission shall bear 
its own costs and 90% of those incurred by the applicant. 
Summary 
1. Officials — Actions — Prior administrative complaint — Time-limits — Matter 
of public policy 
(Staff Regulations, Arts 90 and 91) 
2. Officials — Actions — Time-limits — Starting-point — Notification — Concept 
— Decision addressed to an official in a language of which he has not got a good 
command - Exclusion 
(Staff Regulations, Art. 91(3)) 
3. Officials — Actions — Prior administrative complaint — Mandatory nature — 
Decision terminating an official's employment — Act confirming a decision declaring 
the pre-recruitment medical examination void — Not such a confirmatory act 
(Staff Regulations, Art. 91(2)) 
4. Officials — Recruitment - Medical examination - Candidate's obligation to 
answer the questions put — Limits 
(Staff Regulations, Art. 33) 
I-A - 56 
RUDOLPH v COMMISSION 
5. Officials - Recruitment - Medical examination - Medical assessment -
Judicial review - Scope 
6. Officials - Actions - Object - Direction to the administration - Inadmissibility 
- Jurisdiction to make any order - Claim for payment - Admissibility 
(Staff Regulations, Art. 91) 
7. Officials - Actions - Action for compensation - Annulment of the contested 
decision not providing adequate compensation for non-material harm - False 
accusation of fraudulent conduct during the pre-recruitment medical examination 
(Staff Regulations, Art. 91) 
1. The time-limits laid down in Articles 90 and 91 of the Staff Regulations for 
submitting complaints and commencing actions are a matter of public policy and 
cannot be left to the discretion of the parties or of the Court. Consequently, the fact 
that the defendant did not point out during the pre-litigation stage that the complaint 
was out of time cannot deprive the administration of its right to raise an objection 
of inadmissibility at the stage of Court proceedings or exempt the Court from the 
obligation incumbent on it to check that the time-limits laid down in the Staff 
Regulations have been complied with. 
(see para. 41) 
See: T-14/91 Weyrich v Commission [1991] ECR II-235, paras 40 to 42; T-54/90 Lacroix 
v Commission [1991] ECR II-749, paras 24 and 25; T-128/89 Offermann v Parliament 
[1991] ECR II-855, para. 34; T-113/95 Mancini v Commission [1996] ECR-SC I-A-185 
and II-543, para. 20 
I-A - 57 
SUMMARY - CASE T-197/98 
2. A decision is duly notified, within the meaning of the Staff Regulations, and 
causes time to begin to run for the purpose of submitting a complaint when it is 
communicated to the addressee and the addressee is able to have effective 
knowledge of its content. 
Communication of a decision in a language of which the addressee does not have 
a thorough knowledge is not compatible with the duty of institutions to have regard 
for the welfare of their officials and cannot in any way constitute effective 
notification causing time to begin to run for the purpose of submitting a complaint. 
(see paras 44 and 46) 
See: 5/76 Jansch v Commission [1976] ECR 1027, para. 10; T-50/92 Fioroni v 
Parliament [1993] ECR II-555, para. 16; T-94/92 X v Commission [1994] ECR-SC 
I-A-149 and II-481, para. 24; T-106/95 H v Commission [1997] ECR-SC I-A-133 and 
II-403, paras 31 and 35 
3. An action by an official against a measure which adversely affects him must have 
been preceded by an administrative complaint which has been rejected by express 
or implied decision. Owing to its premature nature, an action brought before that 
pre-litigation procedure has come to an end is inadmissible under Article 91(2) of 
the Staff Regulations. 
In that context, a decision terminating an official's employment cannot be regarded 
as merely confirming a previous decision based on the same facts and declaring the 
pre-recruitment medical examination void. The second decision clearly contains a 
new element by comparison with the first in that it terminates the official's 
employment. 
(see paras 53 to 55) 
I-A - 58 
RUDOLPH v COMMISSION 
See: 23/80 Grasselli v Commission [1980] ECR 3709, para. 18; 130/86 Du Besset v 
Council [1986] ECR 2619, para. 7; T-47/89 and T-82/89 Marcato v Commission [1990] 
ECR II-231, para. 32; T-78/91 Moat and TAO/AFI v Commission [1991] ECR II-1387, 
para. 3; T-82/92 Cortes Jiminez and Others v Commission [1994] ECR-SC I-A-69 and 
II-237, para. 14 
4. The questionnaire sent to a candidate before the pre-recruitment medical 
examination constitutes an important element of assessment for the medical officer 
responsible for determining whether a candidate is physically fit for a post in the 
Community civil service. It must be completed honestly and in full, failing which 
the pre-recruitment medical examination is irregular and may be declared void by 
the institution concerned. None the less, the candidate is not required to declare 
problems about which he did not feel it necessary to consult a doctor or follow a 
course of treatment or, where he did consult a doctor, to make his own diagnosis 
in order to complete the appropriate part of the questionnaire when the doctor 
consulted was unable to make a diagnosis. A candidate for recruitment meets his 
obligations in connection with the pre-recruitment medical examination when he 
answers honestly and fully the questions set out in the questionnaire and any 
questions put by the doctor responsible for the examination. 
(see paras 77, 82 and 83) 
5. Although the Community judicature cannot substitute its own assessment for an 
opinion of a specifically medical nature, it is none the less required, when 
conducting its judicial review, to consider whether the decision of the appointing 
authority is based on a reasoned medical opinion establishing a comprehensible link 
between the medical findings which it contains and the conclusion which it draws. 
(see para. 86) 
I-A - 59 
SUMMARY — CASE T-197/98 
See: 189/82 Seiler and Others v Council [1984] ECR 229, para. 15; T-10/93 A v 
Commission [1994] ECR-SC I-A-119 and II-387, para. 61 
6. The Court of First Instance has no jurisdiction to issue directions in the context 
of a review of legality under Article 91 of the Staff Regulations and cannot therefore 
order the defendant institution to reinstate an official. However, in an action of a 
financial character in which the Court has unlimited jurisdiction pursuant to the 
second sentence of Article 91(1) of the Staff Regulations, the Court has jurisdiction 
to rule on the pecuniary claims for payment of arrears of the applicant's salary, plus 
interest. 
(see paras 33 and 92) 
See: T-15/93 Vienne v Parliament [1993] ECR II-1327, paras 41 and 42; T-588/93 G v 
Commission [1994] ECR-SC I-A-277 and II-875, para. 26; T-130/96 Aquilino v Council 
[1998] ECR-SC I-A-351 and II-1017, paras 41 and 42 
7. The annulment of an administrative act challenged by an official may in itself 
constitute appropriate and, in principle, sufficient reparation for any non-material 
harm which the official may have sustained, unless the unlawful administrative act 
includes a potentially damaging assessment of the official's abilities or conduct. 
I-A - 60 
RUDOLPH v COMMISSION 
Assessments whereby the appointing authority, by accusing the person concerned 
of having omitted at the stage of the pre-recruitment medical examination to declare 
a medical history the importance of which for the determination of the opinion as 
to his physical fitness could not have escaped him, impugns his good faith and 
positively states that his conduct was fraudulent may be regarded as damaging to the 
extent of causing non-material harm for which annulment of the contested act does 
not alone constitute full reparation. 
(see para. 98) 
See: C-343/87 Culin v Commission [1990] ECR I-225, paras 25 to 29; T-60/94 Pierrot 
v Court of Justice [1995] ECR-SC I-A-23 and II-77, para. 62 
I-A - 61