JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Fourth Chamber)

22 September 1994

Case T-495/93

Maria Carrer and Others

V

Court of Justice of the European Communities

‛Officials — Actions — Admissibility — Act adversely affecting an official — Time-limits — Time-bar — Time starting to run anew — Conditions — Application for assistance’

Full text in French II-651

Application for:

annulment of the rejection of the applicants' applications for the alignment of parental contribution scales in Luxembourg for the crèche, day nursery and study centre with those in force in Brussels.

Decision:

Application dismissed.

Abstract of the Judgment

In February 1992 the applicants referred to the institution, in its capacity as a member of the Comité des Activités Sociales (CAS), tlie inter-institutional joint body with responsibility for fixing parental contribution scales, complaints directed against the refusal of the CAS to bring those scales into line with the lower scales in force in Brussels. Those complaints were rejected by letters notified to the applicants on 5 June 1992, on the ground, in particular, that the decision by the CAS could not be regarded as capable of forming the subject-matter of a complaint before the Court.

The applicants then lodged an application for assistance in July 1992, under Articles 24 and 90(1) of the Staff Regulations, requesting their institution to adopt, in its capacity as a member of the CAS, any measures likely to bring the disparity between the scales to an end. The institution replied in November 1992 by giving, inter alia, brief explanations for the differences in the scales.

The applicants then lodged fresh complaints against their institution in February 1993, requesting it to reconsider its reply. Those complaints were rejected by decisions of 14 May and 21 June 1993, against which the action is brought.

Admissibility

The plea in law alleging that the action was brought out of time

The Court finds that the applications for assistance, in so far as they seek the withdrawal of the scales for Luxembourg adopted by the CAS and their alignment with the Brussels scales, have the same subject-matter as the complaints lodged in February 1992 against the CAS's refusal to align those same scales. The action is therefore inadmissible, inasmuch as the applications for assistance which gave rise to the administrative procedure leading to the decisions contested in the present action seek reconsideration by the institution of decisions which became final in any event upon the expiry of the period allowed under the Staff Regulations for the bringing of an action, such period having started to run as from the notification, on 5 June 1992, of the rejection of the complaints of February 1992 (paragraph 19).

The time-limits prescribed in Articles 90 and 91 of the Staff Regulations, being designed to ensure legal certainty, are a matter of public policy and are binding on the parties and the Court. An official cannot therefore obtain the reopening of the prescribed periods by submitting a request under Article 90(1) of the Staff Regulations. The fact that an institution may have dealt with the substance of a request which was submitted out of time and is thus inadmissible cannot have the effect of derogating from the system of mandatory time-limits and reestablishing a right of action (paragraph 20).

See: 227/83 Moussis v Commission [1984] ECR 3133, paras 12 and 13; 161/87 Muy sers and Tülp v Court of Auditors [1988] ECR 3037, para. 11; T-6/90 Petrilli v Commission [1990] ECR II-765; T-58/89 Williams v Court of Auditors [1991] ECR II-77, para. 39; T-14/91 Weyrich v Conunission [1991] ECR II-235, paras 40 and 42

Under the system of remedies established by the Staff Regulations, an application for assistance by an official under Article 24 of the Staff Regulations may in no case reestablish to his advantage a right of action that has already lapsed against a decision that has become final on the expiry of the periods referred to above. Moreover, Article 24 of the Staff Regulations is concerned with the defence of officials by the institution against the acts of third parties and not against acts emanating from the institution itself, the review of which is governed by the procedures laid down by Articles 90 and 91 of the Staff Regulations (paragraph 21).

See: 178/80 Bellardi-Ricciv Commission [1981] ECR 3187, para. 23; 98/81 Munk v Commission [1982] ECR 1155, para. 21; T-25/91 Arto Hijos v Council [1992] ECR II-1907, para. 58; T-45/91 McAvoy v Parliament [1993] ECR II-83, para. 60; T-6/92 and T-52/92 Reinan v Commission [1993] ECR II-1047, para. 91

Finally, the Court points out that inter-institutional joint bodies, such as the CAS, since they do not constitute third parties in relation to the institution and do not have an independent existence for the purposes of the Staff Regulations, cannot as such be brought before the Community judicature. It follows that the complaints of February 1992 were addressed to the authority competent to receive them, so that after expiry of the prescribed periods for bringing an action the decision of the institution rejecting those complaints became final in any event (paragraph 22).

Costs

The Court considers that the decisions rejecting the complaints of February 1992 contained a certain ambiguity likely to mislead the applicants. The institution should have interpreted those complaints as necessarily directed against its own decision determining the amount of the parental contributions. By adopting a purely literal interpretation of the complaints in question, the institution failed to apprise the applicants of the course to be followed in order to assert their rights (paragraphs 23, 27 and 28).

In those circumstances, the Court orders the institution to bear all the costs, including those incurred by the applicants, pursuant to Article 87(3) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance (paragraph 29).

Operative part:

The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

The defendant is ordered to bear all the costs.