Order — ECLI:EU:T:1998:157
Date: 1998-07-08
Language of the case: Greek
Court formation: Fourth Chamber
Based on: Merger Treaty (1965)
Subject matter: Staff regulations and employment conditions - EC
Concepts: Administrative complaint;Effect of the outcome of the action for annulment;Concept
Procedure: Staff cases - inadmissible

ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Fourth Chamber) 
8 July 1998 
Case T-200/95 
X 
v 
Commission of the European Communities 
(Officials - Time-limits for submitting a complaint - Clearly inadmissible) 
Full text in Greek II - 1003 
Application for: annulment of a decision forbidding the applicant access to 
Commission premises following the decision to remove 
him from his post, and compensation for the damage 
sustained as a result. 
Decision: Application dismissed. 
Abstract of the Order 
The applicant entered the service of the Commission on 31 January 1983 as an 
official in grade A 4 in Directorate-General VII (Transport). In June 1991 he was 
appointed Deputy Head of Unit 3 (Air safety, air traffic control and industrial 
I-A - 347 
ABSTRACT - CASE T-200/95 
policy, social aspects) of Directorate C (Air transport) of DG VII (Unit VII.C.3), 
with responsibility for matters concerning air safety. 
On 8 October 1992 the Commission commenced disciplinary proceedings against 
him. 
By decision of 4 October 1993 the appointing authority took a decision to remove 
the applicant from his post. 
By note of 5 October 1993, Mr Richardson, Director of Directorate B (Rights and 
Obligations) of Directorate-General IX (Personnel and Administration) informed the 
applicant that, as from that date, he was forbidden access to Commission premises 
with the exception of certain buildings housing the departments responsible for 
social and administrative matters, namely, remuneration, pensions, sickness 
insurance and social services. 
On 31 January 1995 the applicant, in his capacity as representative of a Greek 
research department, and accompanied by a Commission official, turned up at the 
Commission building at 29 Avenue de Beaulieu in Brussels to submit a research 
proposal. However, he was denied access. 
This scene was repeated at the Commission building at 80 Rue d'Arlon in Brussels, 
where the applicant was informed that the decision in question had been taken by 
the Commission administration. 
I-A - 348 
X v COMMISSION 
In the wake of those incidents, the applicant informed the Director-General of 
Personnel by letter of 30 March 1995 that he regarded the ban on entering 
Commission premises as detrimental to his private, professional and academic life. 
Consequently, he asked the Director-General to lift the ban, since it could not in his 
view be based on any lawful provision, especially since proceedings contesting the 
decision to remove him from his post were pending before the Court of First 
Instance. 
The Director-General never replied to that letter. 
Admissibility 
The first point to note is that, contrary to the Commission's view, Mr Richardson's 
note is sufficient in itself to produce legal effects. The decision removing the 
applicant from his post merely states that he was excused from performing his duties 
in his former department. It does not contain any information concerning the 
applicant's access to Commission premises in general. Furthermore, it is apparent 
from explanations provided by the Commission during the written procedure that the 
ban in question was regarded as a measure necessary in the circumstances of this 
case; it was not an automatic consequence of the applicant's removal from his post 
(paragraph 34). 
Since Mr Richardson's note produces legal effects, it adversely affects the applicant 
(paragraph 35). 
See: 32/68 Grasselli v Commission 11969) ECR 505, para. 4; 204/85 Streghili v Court of 
Auditors [1987] ECR 389, para. 6 
I-A - 349 
ABSTRACT - CASE T-200/95 
The note in question was communicated to the applicant on 5 October 1993 and, 
pursuant to Article 90 of the Staff Regulations, should have been contested by 
5 January 1994 at the latest. However, it was not until 30 March 1995 that the 
applicant asked the Director-General for Personnel to withdraw the decision 
forbidding him access to Commission premises. Accordingly, the applicant's 
complaint seeking withdrawal of that decision was clearly out of time 
(paragraphs 36 and 37). 
Operative part: 
The application is dismissed as clearly inadmissible. 
I-A - 350