ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Fourth Chamber)

15 December 1998

Case T-25/98

Henri de Compte

v

European Parliament

‛Officials — Application for annulment and damages — Decision of the Parliament giving discharge in respect of the implementation of its budget for the financial year 1995 — Preliminary administrative procedure — Decision rejecting a complaint — Same subject-matter and legal basis — Partial inadmissibility — Res judicata — Action manifestly unfounded in law’

Full text in French II-1903

Application for:

first, annulment of decision A4-0125/97 of the European Parliament of 10 April 1997 giving discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget for the financial year 1995 — Section I — European Parliament/Ombudsman annex (OJ 1997 C 132, p. 148) and the decision of the Parliament communicated on 19 November 1997 rejecting a complaint lodged by the applicant; and, second, a claim for damages in respect of the loss suffered by the applicant owing to the publication of that decision and the unjust accusation of a cash loss.

Decision:

Application inadmissible in part, and unfounded in law for the remainder.

Abstract of the Order

Mr de Compte, a former official of the Parliament, was in 1988, as an accounting officer at that institution, the subject of a disciplinary measure downgrading him from Grade A 3 to Grade A 7 because of various irregularities.

On 19 December 1991 the Parliament refused to grant him a discharge for 1982.

On 10 April 1997 the Parliament adopted decision of discharge A4-0125/97, according to which ‘the discrepancy of BEF 4136125 between the cash situation and the accounts, an amount which was excluded from the scope of the discharge granted for the financial year 1982, will have to be regularised ...’.

On 17 April 1997 the Parliament decided to take no action in respect of letters from Mr de Compte dated 20 February, 2 March and 17 March 1997 on the ‘cash deficit’ of BEF 4136125.

On 11 July 1997 Mr de Compte sent the Parliament a letter described as an ‘action within the meaning of the first and second paragraphs of Article 90 of the Staff Regulations’ against certain ‘decisions’ contained in the ‘correspondence of 17 April 1997’. That letter was followed on 16 July 1997 by a letter described in the same way and containing as an annex a ‘further memorial’ entitled ‘Lies, falsehoods and trumped-up evidence’.

By decision of 17 November 1997, which was communicated on 19 November 1997, the Parliament referred to the letters of 11 and 16 July 1997 and rejected the applicant's complaint.

By application dated 21 January 1998 Mr de Compte brought the present action.

Admissibility

Admissibility of the claim that the decision of discharge should be annulled

Under Article 179 of the EC Treaty the Community judicature has jurisdiction in any dispute between the Community institutions and their officials, but only ‘within the limits and under the conditions laid down in the Staff Regulations ...’. Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communities (Staff Regulations) provides that an appeal whereby an official disputes the legality of an act which adversely affects him is to lie only if it has been preceded by a complaint and if that complaint has been rejected by express decision or by implied decision (paragraph 19).

The claim for annulment, which was not preceded by an administrative complaint against the decision of discharge, is inadmissible (paragraphs 20 and 21).

Admissibility of the claim for the annulment of the decision rejecting the complaint

Since Articles 90 and 91 of the Staff Regulations are a matter of public policy and the parties are unable to dispense with them, it is necessary to ascertain whether the applicant complied with the administrative procedure laid down in those provisions. It is for the Court, regardless of the arguments of the parties, first, to determine whether there was an act adversely affecting the official on which the initiation of the precontentious stage provided for in Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations could be based and, second, to determine the legal status to be attributed to the documents addressed by the official to his institution, which depends exclusively on the Court's assessment and not on the will of the parties (paragraph 38).

See: T-26/96 Lopes v Court of Justice [1996] ECRSC II-1357, para. 17

Upon examining the file, the Court considers that the claims for annulment directed against the rejection of the complaint must be rejected as inadmissible in their entirety, save as regards those concerning the annulment of the accounts entry relating to the amount of BEF 4136125 and the Parliament's refusal to make available to the applicant all the accounts documents which justified the refusal to issue a discharge.

Admissibility of the claims for damages

The claim for compensation of the loss resulting from the publication of the decision of discharge is linked to the claim for annulment of that decision, which is inadmissible. The claim for damages is therefore inadmissible (paragraphs 64 and 65).

The claim for compensation of the loss caused by the accusation of the loss of cash is described by the applicant as independent and is therefore inadmissible, since it was not preceded by the precontentious procedure provided for in Article 90 of the Staff Regulations (paragraph 66).

Substance

The claims in the application which have not been rejected as inadmissible are manifestly unfounded in law and must therefore be rejected (paragraphs 68 and 74).

Operative part:

The application is dismissed as inadmissible, save as regards the claim for annulment of the accounts entry relating to the amount of BEF 4136125 and the Parliament's refusal to make available to the applicant all the accounting documents which justified the refusal to grant a discharge to the applicant.

The remainder of the application is dismissed as manifestly unfounded in law.