ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (First Chamber)

12 October 1998

Case T-235/97

Franco Campoli

v

Commission of the European Communities

‛Officials — Judgment of the Court of First Instance — Application for reclassification in grade — Objection of inadmissibility — New material fact — Admissibility’

Full text in Italian II-1731

Application for:

annulment, first, of the Commission decision of 16 October 1996 rejecting the applicant's application for reclassification in grade and, second, of the Commission decision of 29 April 1997 rejecting the complaint lodged against the decision of 16 October 1996.

Decision:

Application dismissed.

Abstract of the Order

On 6 November 1985 the applicant was appointed as a probationary official and classified in Grade A 8, Step 2.

On 5 October 1995 the Court of First Instance delivered its judgment in Case T-17795 Alexopoulou v Commission [1995] ECR-SC II-683 {Alexopoulou judgment). On 7 February 1996 the Commission amended its decision of 1 September 1983 on the criteria applicable to the appointment in grade and classification in step on recruitment. The first paragraph of Article 2 of that decision now reads:

‘[The appointing authority] shall appoint a probationary official in the starting grade of the career bracket to which he is recruited.

By way of exception to the principle, the appointing authority may decide to appoint a probationary official to the higher grade of the career bracket where the specific needs of the service require the recruitment of a person with particular qualifications or where the person recruited has exceptional qualifications.’

On 26 June 1996 the applicant applied for a review of his classification in grade on entering the service of the Commission and to be classified in Grade A 7. That application was rejected on 16 October 1996 on the ground that it was lodged more than three months after the original decision classifying him in grade. On 15 January 1997 the applicant lodged a complaint against the decision of 16 October 1996. On 29 April 1997 the Commission rejected that complaint. On 6 August 1997 the applicant lodged the present action.

Admissibility

The applicant did not lodge a complaint against the decision of 6 November 1985 determining his classification on recruitment within the three months prescribed in Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communities (Staff Regulations). That classification therefore became final (paragraph 25).

An official cannot call in question the conditions of his initial recruitment after it has become final. Only the existence of material new facts may justify the submission of a request to reconsider a decision which was not challenged within the time-limits prescribed in Articles 90 and 91 of the Staff Regulations (paragraph 26).

See: 190/82 Blomefield v Commission [1983] ECR 3981, para. 10; T-131/95 Progoulis v Commission [1995] ECRSC II-907. para. 38; T-16/97 Chauvin v Commission [1997] ECRSC II-681, para. 37

The precise purpose of the applicant's application of 26 June 1996 was to call in question the conditions of his initial recruitment, since it was a request to reconsider his classification in grade on the date on which he took up his post (paragraph 27).

The Alexopoulou judgment does not constitute a new material fact which would allow an application for reclassification to be submitted after the expiry of the period prescribed for lodging a complaint (paragraphs 28 and 29).

See: Chauvin v Commission, cited above, paras 39 to 45

Nor are the nature and legal impact of the decision of 7 February 1996 such that it constitutes a new fact. It has neither the purpose nor the effect of calling in question administrative decisions which had become final before it entered into force (paragraph 30).

See: 15/73 to 33/73, 52/73, 53/73, 57/73 to 109/73, 116/73, 117/73, 123/73, 132/73, 135/73, 136/73 and 137/73 Schots-Kortner and Others v Council, Commission and Parliament [1974] ECR 177, para. 39; 125/87 Brown v Court of Justice [1988] ECR 1619, para. 14; Chauvin v Commission, cited above, para. 46

The use of the power conferred on the institutions by Article 31(2) of the Staff Regulations must be reconciled with observance of the requirements inherent in the concept of a career bracket resulting from Article 5 of the Staff Regulations and from Annex I thereto. A person can therefore be recruited to the higher grade in a career bracket only exceptionally, where the specific needs of the service require the recruitment of a particularly well-qualified person or where the person recruited has exceptional qualifications and seeks to take advantage of Article 31(2). As a general rule, when appointing a newly-recruited official, the appointing authority is not required to examine in each case whether Article 31(2) of the Staff Regulations should be applied or to state reasons for its decision not to make use of that provision (paragraph 32).

See: 146/84 De Santis v Court of Auditors [1985] ECR 1723; Alexopoulou, para. 21

Having regard to the foregoing, the fact that the Commission rejected an application for reclassification in grade submitted out of time does not infringe Article 5(3) of the Staff Regulations (paragraph 33).

Since the applicant has put forward no new facts capable of causing time to begin to ran afresh for the purposes of Articles 90 and 91 of the Staff Regulations, the present action is inadmissible (paragraph 35).

Operative part:

The application is dismissed as inadmissible.