ORDER OF THE CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL
(First Chamber)
6 March 2008
Case F-105/07
R bis
v
Commission of the European Communities
(Civil service – Officials – Action – Action for damages – Conditions under which the probationary period progressed – Extension of probationary period – Establishment as an official – Manifest inadmissibility)
Application: brought under Articles 236 EC and 152 EA, in which R bis seeks in particular annulment of the Commission’s decision of 27
June 2007 rejecting her complaint of 13 March 2007 against the rejection of her claim for compensation, brought on 8 November
2006; in so far as is necessary, annulment of the Commission’s decision of 13 February 2007 rejecting her complaint and claim
for compensation, brought on 8 November 2006, and annulment of the Commission’s decision of 19 December 2005 rejecting her
complaint and claim for compensation of 17 August 2005; and an order for the Commission to pay her compensation of EUR 2 500 000
for the damage which she claims to have suffered because of the institution.
Held: The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible. Each party is to bear its own costs.
Summary
1.      Procedure – Admissibility of actions – Assessment by reference to the rules in force when the application was lodged
(Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal, Art. 76)
2.      Officials – Actions – Prior administrative complaint – Time-limits
(Staff Regulations, Arts 90 and 91)
3.      Procedure – Costs – Action before the Civil Service Tribunal
(Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal, Art. 122)
1.      Although the rule laid down in Article 76 of the Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal that the Tribunal may, by
way of an order, dismiss an action which appears manifestly bound to fail is a procedural rule which, as such, applies to
all proceedings pending before the Tribunal at the time when it enters into force, the same is not true of rules on the basis
of which the Tribunal may, under that article, regard an action as manifestly inadmissible, and which may only be those applicable
on the date when the action is brought.
(see para. 35)
2.      The time-limits prescribed in Articles 90 and 91 of the Staff Regulations, being designed to ensure legal certainty, are a
matter of public policy and are binding on the parties and the Court. An official cannot therefore revive for himself a right
of appeal against a decision which has become definitive upon the expiry of the time-limits for appeal by submitting a request
to the appointing authority under Article 90(1) of the Staff Regulations. Consequently, a fresh claim for damages cannot re-open
the time-limit for appeal which runs from the date on which the applicant receives the decision rejecting the complaint he
has made against the rejection of his first claim for compensation for non-material, professional and material damage.
(see paras 43, 44)
See:
T-495/93 Carrer and Others v Court of Justice [1994] ECR-SC I‑A‑201 and II‑651, para. 20; T-42/97 Lebedef v Commission [1998] ECR-SC I‑A‑371 and II‑1071, para. 25
3.      The provisions on costs in the Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal do not apply, under Article 122 of those Rules,
to cases brought before the Rules came into force. It is not relevant here that the service on the defendant of an application,
brought before the Rules came into force, was delayed until a later date in order to correct formal irregularities in the
documents lodged by the applicant, since under Article 8(1) of the Instructions to the Registrar of the Civil Service Tribunal,
that fact has no effect on the date when the action is brought.
(see paras 49, 50)