EN
ReportsofCases
ECLI:EU:F:2011 :182 1JUDGMENT O F THE CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL
(Second Ch amber)
10 November 2011
Case F-110/10
Denise Couyoufa
v
European Comm ission
(Civil service — Officials — European Commission r epresentations in the Member States — 
2011 r otation p rocedure — Application for exemp tion from rotation — Admissibility — 
Measure amounting to a d ecision — Delay)
Application:brought under Article 270 T FEU, applicable to the EAEC Treaty by virtue of Article 106a 
thereof, in which M s Couyoufa essentially seeks annulment of the decision o f 26 February 
2010 r ejecting her application f or exemp tion f rom th e rotation a pplicable for officials 
assigned to th e Commission’s representations in th e M ember States, and annulment of 
the appointing authority’s decision o f 27 July 2010 r ejecting her complaint against the 
decision o f 26 February 2010 .
Held: The action is dismissed. The Commission is ordered to pay half of the costs incurred by 
the applicant in addi tion to its own costs. The applicant is ordered to pay half of her own 
costs.
Summ ary
1. Officials — Actions — Prior administrative complaint — Time limits — Mandatory — Point from 
which time starts to run
(Staff Regulations, Art. 90(2))
2. Officials — Actions — Prior administrative complaint — Time limits — Claim barred b y lapse of 
time — Reopening — Condition — New and material fact
(Staff Regulations, Arts 90 a nd 91)
3. Officials — Actions — Plea of illegality — Incidental nature — Main action inadmissible — 
Plea inadmissible
(Art. 277 TFEU)
1. According to Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations, a c omplaint must be lodged within a pe riod of 
three m onths which starts to run, if the me asure affects a s pecified pe rson, on th e da te of notification 
of the decision to the person c oncerned, but in no c ase later than the date on w hich the latter received
2 ECLI:EU:F:2011 :182SUMM ARY–CASEF-110/10
COUYOUFAvCOMM ISSION
 such no tification. That time l imit was established in order to ensure that legal positions are clear and 
certain, so that it is a m atter of public policy and is no t subject to the discretion o f the parties or the 
Court.
(see para. 22)
See:
21 June 2010 , T-284/09 P M eister v O HIM, para. 25, and the case-law cited therein
28 April 2009 , F-72/06 V erheyden v C omm ission, para. 39, and the case-law cited therein
2. Although Article 90(1) of the Staff Regulations provides that any official may request the appointing 
authority to take a d ecision r elating to him, that right d oes no t allow an official to set aside the time 
limits laid d own in Articles 90 a nd 91 o f the Staff Regulations for the lodging of a c omplaint and an 
appeal by indirectly calling in question b y me ans of such a r equest a p revious decision w hich has no t 
been challenged within th e pe riod prescribed. Only the existence of material new facts may justify the 
submission o f a r equest for a r eview of such a d ecision.
(see para. 27)
See:
15 May 1985 , 127 /84 E sly v C omm ission, para. 10
7 June 1991 , T-14/91 W eyrich v C omm ission, para. 33
20 September 2007 , F-111/06 G iannopoulos v C ouncil, para. 28; 25 March 2010 , F-102/08 M arcuccio v C omm ission, 
para. 36
3. Article 277 T FEU does no t create an entitlement to take action independently and may be relied on 
only as an incidental plea in an ad missible action, rather than constituting the subject of an action. A 
plea of illegality rai sed in the course of an inadmissible action is thus inadmissible.
(see para. 32)
See:
23 April 2008 , F-103/05 P ickering v C omm ission, para. 94; 23 April 2008 , F-112/05 B ain and Others v C omm ission, 
para. 96, and th e case-law cited th erein; 4 June 2009 , F-134/07 a nd F-8/08 A djemian and Others v C omm ission, 
para. 38