ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Third Chamber)

11 September 1995

Case T-286/94

Z

v

Economic and Social Committee of the European Communities

‛Officials — Promotion — Retirement — Inadmissibility’

Full text in German II-657

Application for:

first, the annulment of the decision of 6 October 1993 rejecting the applicant's candidacy for post No 61/92 and of the implied decision rejecting his complaint and, secondly, for the award of damages.

Decision:

Application dismissed.

Abstract of the Order

The applicant is a former official of the Economic and Social Committee of the European Communities (ESC) who, before his retirement, had been classified in Grade LA 6 as from 1 October 1984.

On 25 May 1989 the ESC published vacancy notice No 10/89 concerning the post of Principal Translator at Grade LA 5/LA 4 in the Directorate-General, German Language Division. On 1 August 1989, by decision of the President of the ESC, Mr Di Carlo was promoted to the post concerned. Following the action brought against that decision by the applicant, the Court of First Instance annulled that promotion decision.

A further procedure to fill the post of Principal Translator (LA 5) in the German Language Division of the ESC was initiated by means of the publication of vacancy notice No 61/92 of 27 November 1992. On 10 December 1992 the applicant applied for that post.

On 17 September 1993 the applicant was granted an invalidity pension. That decision took effect as from 1 October 1993.

By Decision No 308/93 A of 20 September 1993, the President of the ESC promoted Mr Di Carlo to post No 61/92. The applicant. was informed by memorandum of 6 October 1993 that his application had been rejected.

On 16 December 1993, the applicant lodged a complaint against Decision No 308/93 A of 20 September 1993 and the memorandum of the Secretary-General of 6 October 1993. That complaint was expressly rejected on 17 June 1994.

The claim for the annulment of the decision of 6 October 1993

The decision of 6 October 1993 of the Secretary General of the ESC rejecting the applicant's candidacy for post No 61/92 follows logically from Decision No 308/93 A of 20 September 1993 appointing Mr Di Carlo to the post in question, which is not contested in the context of the present case.

Having regard to the fact that the applicant had been granted a pension for permanent and total invalidity by a decision of 17 September 1993, the Court finds that the applicant could no longer, at the time of Mr Di Carlo's appointment on 20 September 1993, and, a fortiori, when the contested measure was adopted on 6 October 1993, claim any appointment or promotion within the ESC.

In those circumstances, the applicant does not have a personal interest in the annulment of the decision of 6 October 1993. The claim for the annulment of that decision is therefore inadmissible.

See: T-58/92 Moat v Commission [1993] ECR II-1443, paras 31 and 32

The claims for the annulment of the implied decision rejecting the complaint and the express decision rejecting the complaint of 17 June 1994

A decision, whether implied or express, rejecting a complaint does not, as such, constitute a challengeable act. These claims are therefore inadmissible.

See: 33/79 and 75/79 Kuhner v Commission [1980] ECR 1677, para. 9; T-14/91 Weyrich v Commission [1991] ECR II-235, para. 43; T-4/93 André v Commission [1994] ECRSC II-471, para. 21

The claim for compensation

Where a direct link exists between an action for annulment and an action for compensation, inadmissibility of the claim for annulment entails the inadmissibility of the claim for compensation. Since the claim for compensation is, as stated by the applicant, directly linked to the claim for the annulment of the decision of 6 October 1993, it too is inadmissible.

See: T-20/92 Moat v Commission [1993] ECR II-799, para. 46; T-3/92 Latham v Commission [1994] ECRSC II-83, para. 37; T-180/94 M v Commission [1994] EGR-SC II-663, para. 28

Operative part:

The application is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.