ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Fourth Chamber)

13 March 1998

Case T-247/97

Maria Lonuzzo-Murgante

v

European Parliament

‛Officials — Application for person to be treated as dependant child — Time-limit for bringing an action — Council Regulation No 1182/71 — Inadmissibility’

Full text in French II-317

Application for:

annulment of the decision of the Parliament of 6 February 1997 rejecting the applicant's application for her daughter to be treated as a dependant child and, in so far as necessary, annulment of the implied decision of 6 September 1997 rejecting the applicant's complaint against the abovementioned decision.

Decision:

Application dismissed.

Abstract of the Order

The applicant began work at the Parliament on 1 June 1975 and she has been a principal clerk in Grade C 1 in the Directorate General of the Registry since 1 January 1994.

By note of 21 January 1997 the applicant requested that her daughter, a student who was then aged 28 and her son, who was then aged 24, be treated as dependant children.

She relied on the provisions of Article 2(4) of Annex VII to the Regulations and Rules applicable to officials and other servants of the European Communities (Staff Regulations), which reads as follows:

‘Any person whom the official has a legal responsibility to maintain and whose maintenance involves heavy expenditure may, exceptionally, be treated as if he were a dependant child by special reasoned decision of the appointing authority, based on supporting documents.’

The request was granted in relation to her son but was expressly rejected in relation to her daughter by note of 6 February 1997 from M.P., head of the ‘individual rights’ section of the Directorate General for Personnel, Budget and Finance.

On 6 May 1997 the applicant lodged a complaint against that decision. On 8 December 1997 the applicant brought this action.

Findings of the Court

The sole question raised by this case is that of determining how the four-month period, which begins on the date on which die complaint is lodged and within which the authority must notify its reasoned decision to the complainant, is to be calculated, bearing in mind that failure to reply by die end of that period is deemed to constitute an implied decision rejecting the complaint, against which an action may be brought under Article 91 (Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations), and that the applicant is submitting that in this case there was such a failure to reply (paragraph 32).

As the Staff Regulations are an act of the Council, and as they do not contain any specific rules on the time-limits under Article 90, the mies as to the time-limit applicable before proceedings commence under Article 90(2), which provides that the appointing authority is to notify the person concerned of its reasoned decision within four months from the date on which the complaint was lodged, are laid down by Article 3(4) of Council Regulation (EEC, Euratom) No 1182/71 determining the rules applicable to periods, dates and time-limits (OJ, English Special Edition 1971 (II), p. 354) (paragraphs 37, 38 and 42).

The time-limit for replying to the complaint lodged on 6 May therefore expired at the end of the working day following Saturday 6 September, namely Monday 8 September, no extension of the time-limit being applicable in this case. It follows that the action was brought prematurely (paragraphs 42 and 43).

See: T-58/92 Moat v Commission [1993] ECR II-1443, para. 39

Operative part:

The action is dismissed as inadmissible.