Order — ECLI:EU:T:2010:457
Date: 2010-10-28
Language of the case: Italian
Court formation: Appeals Chamber
Based on: Merger Treaty (1965)
Subject matter: Staff regulations and employment conditions - EC
Procedure: Appeal - unfounded;Appeal - inadmissible;Staff cases

Summary 1. Officials — Actions — Prior administrative complaint — Implied decision rejecting a request not challenged in good time — Subsequent express decision — Confirmatory measure — Claim barred by lapse of time (Staff Regulations, Arts 90 and 91) 2. Appeals — Subject-matter — Appeal regarding only the amount of the costs and the party ordered to pay them — Inadmissibility (Statute of the Court of Justice, Annex I, Art. 11(2)) 1. A decision expressly rejecting a request which follows the implied rejection of the same request is in the nature of a purely confirmatory measure and therefore does not open, for the official concerned, a new period for lodging a complaint, since the second indent of Article 91(3) of the Staff Regulations, which provides that ‘where a complaint is rejected by express decision after being rejected by implied decision but before the period for lodging an appeal has expired, the period for lodging the appeal shall start to run afresh’, does not apply by analogy to the stage when the request has been submitted and before the complaint is lodged. (see para. 20) See: T‑200/99 Martinelli v Commission [2000] ECR-SC I‑A‑253 and II‑1161, para. 11 and the case-law cited therein 2. The rule laid down in Article 11(2) of Annex I to the Statute of the Court of Justice that an appeal may not relate only to the amount of the costs or the party ordered to pay them applies without any distinction according to the nature of the appeal or how it is lodged. (see para. 44) See: C‑470/00 P Parliament v Ripa di Meana and Others [2004] ECR I‑4167, paras 81 and 82