JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Second Chamber)

9 January 2007

Case T-288/04

Kris Van Neyghem

v

Committee of the Regions of the European Union

(Officials – Appointment – Classification in grade and step – Pay slips – Late complaint – Admissibility)

Application: for annulment of Decision No 87/03 of the Committee of the Regions of 26 March 2003, which definitively classified the applicant in Grade B 5, Step 4.

Held: The action is dismissed as inadmissible. The Committee of the Regions of the European Union is ordered to pay the costs.

Summary

Officials – Action – Prior administrative complaint – Time-limits

(Staff Regulations, Art. 25, second para., Articles 90 and 91)

Notification of the monthly salary statement has the effect of setting time running for the purpose of the time-limit for proceedings against an administrative decision, where the scope of such a decision is clearly apparent from the statement and where the subject-matter of the decision at issue relates purely to remuneration and is likely, by its nature, to be reflected in that statement.

That is not, however, true of a decision giving an official a definitive classification in a grade and step, the main purpose of which is not purely financial per se but concerns an essential aspect of the official’s professional situation. A decision of that importance is not likely to be clearly apparent merely from a pay slip. The latter is an inappropriate means of informing the person concerned that a decision of that importance has been taken, especially when it makes no reference to the grade or step. In the light of the rule laid down in the second paragraph of Article 25 of the Staff Regulations and the principle that the administration has an obligation to ensure that officials are effectively and easily able to acquaint themselves with administrative acts which are of individual concern to them, a principle which is based in particular on the duty of institutions to have regard for the welfare of their officials, an official exercising ordinary care, who is deemed to know the rules governing his salary may legitimately expect that the decision establishing his definitive classification in a grade and step will be communicated to him in writing.

None the less, the fact that the administration has not complied with its obligation to communicate the official’s definitive classification to him in writing does not exempt him from exercising due care, particularly where it is clear that in fact the official was aware that a definitive decision on classification had been made in his case. Moreover, in the light of the legal and factual circumstances existing at the time they are sent, indicated by the fact that a probationer knows that a definitive classification decision is to be made, pay slips may alert a probationer to the fact that a change has taken place in his individual situation, since a substantive change in his basic salary and a retrospective adjustment cannot reasonably escape a person exercising all the diligence required of a normally well-informed official. In that case, it is for him at least to ask the administration the reason for that change in his basic pay and, if appropriate, request the full text of the decision which brought about that change within a reasonable period of time, in order to acquire precise knowledge of the content of the decision in question and of the reasons on which it is based in such a way as to enable him to exercise his right to make a complaint. In that regard, a period of more than five months from the date on which he received the first pay slip showing a substantive change in his basic pay can by no means be regarded as reasonable, even if the applicant thought in all good faith that agreement would be reached with the administration without a claim being brought; the potential existence of such an agreement did not exempt the official from complying with the time-limits for bringing a claim, which are a matter of public policy.

(see paras 39-43, 47-50)

See: C‑246/95 Coen [1997] ECR I‑403, para. 21; T‑33/89 and T‑74/89 Blackman v Parliament [1993] ECR II‑249, para. 34; T‑6/94 A v Parliament [1996] ECR‑SC I‑A‑191 and II‑555, para. 52; T‑232/97 Becret-Danieau and Others v Parliament [1998] ECR‑SC I‑A‑157 and II‑495, paras 31 and 32; T‑190/02 Österholm v Commission [2004] ECR‑SC I‑A‑197 and II‑877, para. 32; T‑354/03 Reggimenti v Parliament [2005] ECR-SC I‑A‑33 and II‑147, paras 38 and 39; T‑144/03 Schmit v Commission [2005] ECR‑SC I‑A‑101 and II‑465, para. 146