ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Fifth Chamber)
6 May 2004
Case T-34/03
André Hecq
v
Commission of the European Communities
(Staff cases – Act adversely affecting an official – Capacity to bring proceedings – Official acting personally and not on behalf of a trade union organisation – Inadmissibility)
Full text in French II - 0000
Application:         for annulment of the Commission’s decision of 4 October 2002 rejecting the complaint brought by Mr Hecq, acting both personally
and in his capacity as President of the Syndicat des fonctionnaires internationaux et européens, against various decisions
relating to the representation of staff and the resources made available by the Commission, and for compensation for the damage
allegedly suffered as a result of those decisions.
Held:         The application is dismissed as inadmissible. The applicant is ordered to bear his own costs and to pay those of the Commission.
Summary
1.     Officials – Actions – Prior administrative complaint – Requirement that subject-matter and grounds be the same – Pleas and
arguments not appearing in the complaint but closely linked to it – Admissibility
(Staff Regulations, Arts 90 and 91)
2.     Officials – Actions – Capacity to bring proceedings – Action brought by an official personally against a decision to terminate
an agreement made by an institution with the staff associations solely to govern collective labour relations – Inadmissibility
(Staff Regulations, Arts 90 and 91)
3.     Officials – Actions – Action against a measure of general application, in the absence of an act adversely affecting an official
– Inadmissibility
(Staff Regulations, Arts 90 and 91)
4.     Officials – Actions – Claim for compensation linked to claim for annulment – Inadmissibility of claim for annulment resulting
in inadmissibility of claim for compensation
(Staff Regulations, Arts 90 and 91)
1.     The object of the pre-litigation procedure is to permit an amicable settlement of the differences which have arisen between
officials or servants and the administration. In order that such a procedure may fulfil its purpose, it is necessary for the
appointing authority to be in a position to know in sufficient detail the criticisms made by those concerned of the contested
decision. Furthermore, in actions brought by officials, the claims put before the Court may only have the same subject-matter
as those made in the complaint and may not contain heads of claims based on matters other than those relied on in the complaint.
The submissions and arguments made to the Court in support of those heads of claim need not necessarily appear in the complaint,
but must be closely linked to it. Finally, since the pre-litigation procedure is informal in character and those concerned
are generally acting without the assistance of a lawyer at that stage, the administration must not interpret the complaints
restrictively but, on the contrary, must consider them with an open mind.
(see para. 21)
See: 133/88 Del Amo Martinez v Parliament [1989] ECR 689, paras 9 to 11; T‑127/00 Nevin v Commission [2002] ECR-SC I-A-149 and II-781, para. 28
2.     A framework agreement between an institution and the trade unions and staff associations which is designed to define their
relations is a measure of general application and is intended only to govern collective labour relations between the institution
concerned on the one hand and the trade unions and staff associations on the other. It does not give rise, for each official
taken individually, to any obligation or to any right, and does not fall within the sphere of individual working relations
between the employer and the official, but in the wider context of relations between an institution and the trade unions and
staff associations. The termination of such an agreement is not a measure producing binding legal effects liable to have a
direct effect on the interests of an individual official who is a member of a trade union by significantly altering his legal
situation as an official, against which he could bring proceedings on that basis.
(see paras 33-35)
See: T-576/93 to T‑582/93 Browet and Others v Commission [1994] ECR II-677, para. 44
3.     Under the system of remedies established by Articles 90 and 91 of the Staff Regulations, an official may only challenge an
act which adversely affects him individually, and it is only in that context that he may, through a plea of illegality, invoke
the inapplicability of a measure of general application.
(see paras 39, 57)
See: 153/79 Bowden and Others v Commission [1981] ECR 2111, para. 13; T‑97/92 and T-111/92 Rijnoudt and Hocken v Commission [1994] ECR-SC I‑A‑159 and II-511, para. 41
4.     Where an applicant brings an action seeking at the same time annulment of an act of an institution and the award of compensation
for damage caused by that act, the claims are so closely linked that the inadmissibility of the claim for annulment entails
the inadmissibility of the action for compensation.
(see para. 64)
See: T-11/90 H. S. v Council [1992] ECR II-1869, para. 25; T-213/99 Verheyden v Commission [2000] ECR-SC I‑A-297 and II-1355, para. 35