ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Fifth Chamber)

16 December 1998

Case T-93/98

Ioannis Rentzos

v

European Parliament

‛(Staff report — Rejection of request to revise the staff report — Action for annulment — Time-limit — Inadmissibility)’

Full text in French II-1923

Application for:

annulment of the applicant's staff report for the period 1995/1997, of the defendant's decision rejecting the request for revision of that report and, in so far as necessary, of the defendant's decision rejecting the applicant's complaint.

Decision:

Application inadmissible.

Abstract of the Order

The applicant entered the Parliament's service on 1 May 1981 as a translator in Grade LA 7.

By letter of 14 October 1997, which was registered at the Parliament on 15 October 1997, the applicant lodged a complaint under Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations of officials of the European Communities (Staff Regulations) seeking a review of his 1995/1997 staff report.

On 22 December 1997 the applicant's lawyer wrote to the Secretary-General of the Parliament (Secretary-General) informing him of a ‘dysfunction in the organisation of work in the Greek Translation Division’ in relation, in particular, to the duties carried out by his client, and requested the Secretary-General to take action to ensure that his client's duties and responsibilities were clearly defined.

On 12 February 1998 the Parliament rejected the complaint of 15 October 1997 and on 9 March 1998 the Secretary-General replied to the letter of 22 December 1998.

Admissibility

It is the responsibility of the party alleging that an action is out of time to prove on what date the decision was notified (paragraph 33).

See: 108/79 Belfiore v Commission [1980] ECR 1769, para. 7; 193/87 and 194/87 Maurissen and Union Syndicale v Court of Auditors [1989] ECR 1045, para. 46; T-l/90 Pérez-Míiigitez Casariego v Commission [1991] ECR II-143, para. 37

In the present case the applicant denies having been aware of the Parliament's letter of 12 February 1998 rejecting his complaint of 15 October 1997. The Parliament states that the letter was sent to the applicant's administrative address by official internal post and admits that it has no evidence that the letter was actually received by the applicant. The Court cannot therefore consider it established that the applicant was aware of the content of the said letter (paragraph 34).

In those circumstances, it is necessary to examine the alternative ground of inadmissibility raised by the Parliament, that in any event an implied decision rejecting the complaint was deemed to have been taken on 15 February 1998 and that the application was therefore lodged after expiry of the time-limit laid down in Article 91(3) (paragraph 35).

Under the second subparagraph of Artide 90(2) of the Staff Regulations, the failure to reply within four months from the date on which the complaint was lodged, 15 October 1997, was deemed to constitute an implied decision rejecting the complaint, against which an appeal within the meaning of Article 91 lay. Since the application was not lodged until 8 June 1998 the appeal was lodged after the expiry of the three-month period provided for in the second indent of Article 91(3) (paragraph 36).

Furthermore, the facts of the case do not correspond with the circumstances referred to, by way of exception, in the second indent of Article 91(3) of the Staff Regulations, which provides that ‘nevertheless, where a complaint is rejected by express decision after being rejected by implied decision but before the period for lodging an appeal has expired, the period for lodging the appeal shall start to run afresh’ (paragraph 37).

As the defendant maintains, the Secretary-General's reply of 9 March 1998 related exclusively to the questions raised in the letter of 22 December 1997 from the applicant's lawyer. It is apparent from the wording of that letter that the applicant's counsel himself drew a distinction between the object of the letter and that of the complaint of 15 October 1997 (paragraph 38).

The Secretary-General's letter of 9 March 1998 replying to that letter did not concern the staff report. The Secretary-General informed the applicant that he considered his request to be a request within the meaning of Article 90(1) of the Staff Regulations. The Court therefore finds that by this letter the Parliament was replying only to the letter of 22 December 1997 (paragraph 40).

The applicant was therefore not entitled to regard the reply of 9 March 1998 as an express decision rejecting his complaint of 15 October 1997, even on the assumption that he was not notified of the letter of 12 February 1998 (paragraph 41).

The appeal was therefore lodged out of time (paragraph 42).

Operative part:

The application is dismissed as inadmissible.