ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Third Chamber)

25 March 2003

Case T-243/02

J

v

Commission of the European Communities

‛Officials — Decision to initiate proceedings under Article 51 of the Staff Regulations — Action for annulment and compensation — Manifest inadmissibility’

Full text in French II-523

Application for:

primarily, annulment of various measures relating to the initiation of proceedings under Article 51 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communities, and compensation for the nonmaterial damage suffered by the applicant.

Held:

The application is dismissed as inadmissible. The parties are to bear their own costs.

Summary

The existence of an act adversely affecting an official within the meaning of Articles 90(2) and 91(1) of the Staff Regulations is an essential condition for the admissibility of any action brought by officials against the institution by which they are employed. Only acts or decisions producing binding legal consequences likely directly and immediately to affect the applicant's interests by significantly changing his legal situation may be the subject of an action for annulment. A note concerning the initiation of proceedings against an official under Article 51 of the Staff Regulations does not produce binding legal consequences likely directly and immediately to affect the interests of the person concerned. The aim of initiating such proceedings is to enable the appointing authority to examine and ascertain whether the allegations against the official concerned as to the quantity and quality of his work are accurate, and to hear him on the subject, in accordance with Article 51(2) of the Staff Regulations, in order to form an opinion whether dismissal is appropriate. It is therefore merely a preparatory act which does not in any way prejudge the final outcome of the proceedings. (see paras 30-31, 34) See: T-20/92 Moat v Commission [1993] ECR II-799, para. 39, and the case-law cited; T-586/93 Kotzonis v ESC [1995] ECR II-665, para. 28; T-562/93 Obst v Commission [1995] ECRSC I-A-247 and II-737, para. 23

Every decision rejecting a complaint, whether that decision be express or implied, does not constitute, by itself, a measure which is open to challenge. It is only when this decision upholds all or part of the complaint of the person concerned that it will, in appropriate circumstances, constitute by itself a decision against which an action can be brought. It follows that an action against a decision rejecting a complaint must be examined, as to its admissibility, with the decisions which are the subject of the complaint. (see paras 36-37) See: 33/79 and 75/79 Kuhner v Commission [1980] ECR 1677, para. 9; 371/87 Progoulis v Commission [1988] ECR 3081, para. 17; T-195/96 Alexopoulou v Commission [1998] ECRSC I-A-51 and II-117, para. 48

In proceedings brought under Article 91 of the Staff Regulations, it is not for the Court of First Instance to issue directions to Community institutions. First, the Community judicature manifestly has no jurisdiction to issue directions to Community institutions, and secondly, where a measure is annulled, the institution concerned is required to take the necessary measures to comply with the judgment. (see para. 40) See: T-94/92 X v Commission [1994] ECRSC I-A-149 and II-481, para. 33; T-583/93 P v Commission [1995] ECRSC I-A-137 and II-433, para. 17