ORDER OF THE CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL (First Chamber)
14 December 2007
Case F-82/06
Tineke Duyster
v
Commission of the European Communities
(Civil service – Officials – Parental leave – Date when parental leave begins – Lis pendens – Manifest inadmissibility)
Application: brought under Articles 236 EC and 152 EA, in which Mrs Duyster seeks annulment of the Commission’s decision of 11 May 2006
rejecting her complaint against the Commission’s decision of 17 November 2005 fixing the date for the start of her parental
leave on 8 November 2004. Moreover, the applicant once again puts forward the same heads of claim as in Case F‑18/06 Duyster v Commission, namely, first, annulment of the Commission’s decision of 17 November 2005 fixing the date for the start of her parental
leave on 8 November 2004, and second, payment of damages in compensation for the material and non-material damage caused by
that decision.
Held: The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible. Each party is to bear its own costs.
Summary
1.      Procedure – Admissibility of pleadings – Assessment at the time when the pleading is submitted
(Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 114)
2.      Procedure – Objection of lis pendens
1.      Just as the admissibility of an action must be judged by reference to the situation prevailing when the application was lodged,
the admissibility of other pleadings, such as a plea of inadmissibility, must be judged at the time when they are submitted.
Such an interpretation ensures respect for the principles of legal certainty and the protection of legitimate expectations.
(see para. 40)
See:
50/84 Bensider and Others v Commission [1984] ECR 3991, para. 8
T-236/00 R II Stauner and Others v Parliament and Commission [2001] ECR II‑2943, para. 49; T-219/01 Commerzbank v Commission [2003] ECR II‑2843, para. 61
2.      An action which is between the same parties, has the same purpose and is brought on the basis of the same submissions as an
action brought previously must be dismissed as inadmissible.
(see para. 47)
See:
172/83 and 226/83 Hoogovens Groep v Commission [1985] ECR 2831, para. 9; 358/85 and 51/86 France v Parliament [1988] ECR 4821, para. 12
Judgment of 14 June 2007 in T-68/07 Landtag Schleswig-Holstein v Commission, not published in the ECR, para. 16