Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2000:124
Date: 2000-05-10
Language of the case: French
Court formation: Single Judge
Based on: Merger Treaty (1965)
Subject matter: Staff regulations and employment conditions - EC
Concepts: Effects of a judgment annulling a measure;Locus standi;General
Procedure: Staff cases - unfounded;Action for damages - unfounded

SUMMARY — CASE T-177/97 
Summary 
1. Officials — Actions — Right to bring an action — Persons claiming the status of 
official or servant other than local servant 
(Staff Regulations, Arts 90 and 91) 
2. Officials - Actions — Judgment of annulment - Effects - Obligations of the 
institution — Compensation for damage suffered by the applicant linked to the 
measure annulled — Implementing measures — Particular difficulties — Fair 
compensation for the detriment to the applicant resulting from the measure which 
has been annulled 
(EC Treaty, Art. 176 (now Art. 223 EC)) 
3. Officials — Conditions of employment of other servants — Status of servant — 
Conditions of acquisition not fulfilled 
(Conditions of employment of other servants, Arts 1 and 6) 
1. Where an applicant claims the status of official or member of the temporary staff, 
an action for annulment of the decision refusing to apply to the applicant the Staff 
Regulations or the Conditions of employment of other servants, lodged in 
accordance with the requirements of Articles 90 and 91 of the Staff Regulations, 
may be regarded as admissible. 
(see para. 22) 
See: 87/77, 130/77, 22/83, 9/84 and 10/84 Salerno and Others v Commission and 
Council [1985] ECR 2523, para. 24; 286/83/ Alexis and Others v Commission [1989] ECR 
2445, para. 9; T-177/94 and T-377/94 Altmann and Casson v Commission [1996] ECR 
II-2041, para. 44 
I-A - 76 
SIMON v COMMISSION 
2. Where compliance with a judgment annulling a measure presents particular 
difficulties, the institution concerned may satisfy the obligation arising from 
Article 176 of the Treaty (now Article 233 EC) by taking such decisions as will 
provide due compensation for the damage which the persons concerned have 
suffered as a result of the decision which has been annulled. In such circumstances, 
the appointing authority may also establish a dialogue with such persons to try to 
agree fair compensation for the unlawfulness suffered. 
(see para. 23) 
See: T-91/95 de Nil and Unpens v Council [1996] ECR-SCI-A-327 and II-959, para. 34; 
T-81 /96 Apostolidis and Others v Commission [1997] ECR-SC I-A-207 and II-607 para 
42 
3. It follows from Articles 1 and 6 of the Conditions of employment of other 
servants that the status of servant of the Communities cannot be conferred on a 
person whose employer is not an institution of the Communities but a legal person 
governed by the law of a Member State, which cannot be assimilated to an 
administrative body of an institution. 
It is irrelevant in that regard that the recruitment of the person concerned had to 
have the prior approval of the institution and that the legal person in question has 
close links with and is largely dependant on the institution. Similarly, the factual 
circumstances relied on to demonstrate that the working conditions or remuneration 
are the same do not make it possible to ignore the difference in law between the 
position of servants hired by an association governed by private law and that of 
officials and servants appointed under the Staff Regulations. 
I-A - 77 
SUMMARY - CASE T-177/91 
Last, it is not possible for a contract as a servant of an institution to be concluded 
not as a result of a decision of the authority designated as competent in that regard 
but as a result of a decision of a national court. 
(see paras 38, 43 to 45) 
See: 65/74 Porríni and Others [1975] ECR 319, para. 15; Salerno and Others v 
Commission and Council, cited above, paras 43 and 50; Alexis and Others v Commission, 
cited above, para. 11; 232/84 Tordeur and Others [1985] ECR 3223 
I-A - 78