JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Fourth Chamber)

30 April 1998

Case T-205/95

Giampaolo Cordiale

v

European Parliament

‛Officials — Exchanges of officials between the Parliament and national administrations — Subsistence allowance — Travel expenses — Complaint — Express rejection — Inadmissibility of the action’

Full text in Italian II-551

Application for:

first, annulment of the decision of the Parliament refusing to grant the applicant the subsistence allowance and travel expenses provided for by the Parliament's decision of 26 October 1988 and, second, damages.

Decision:

Inadmissibility.

Abstract of the Judgment

On 15 February 1989 the applicant took up his duties with the political group, the Liberal, Democratic and Reformist Group of the Parliament (‘the ELDR Group’), as a member of the temporary staff, in Category B.

By letter of 23 July 1992 the Italian Minister for coordination of Community policies (‘the Minister’) asked the President of the ELDR Group for the applicant to be seconded to his service. On 15 December 1992 the President indicated his preference for the exchange procedure provided for by the decision of 26 October 1988 relating to exchanges of officials between the Parliament and national administrations (‘the decision of 26 October 1988’) and invited the Minister to propose an Italian official as a candidate.

By letter of 13 January 1993 the Minister explained that he could not find an available official within his administration. He none the less proposed Miss Ruaro as a candidate.

By letter of 24 February 1993 the President of the ELDR Group told the Minister that the office of the Presidency of the ELDR Group had agreed to his request for a staff exchange between Mr Giampaolo Cordiale and Miss Giulia Paola Ruaro, within the framework of the procedure provided for by the decision of 26 October 1988. On 1 March 1993 the applicant joined the Minister's service in Rome. He resumed his duties with the ELDR Group in Brussels on 15 February 1994.

By letter of 21 November 1994 he asked the Secretary General of the ELDR Group (‘the Secretary General’) for the payment of the subsistence allowance and travel expenses provided for by the decision of 26 October 1988.

By letter of 22 February 1995 the Secretary General rejected that request. In an annex to his letter, he sent a letter that the Director General had addressed to him on 12 December 1994, stating that the Personnel Division had never received a request for Mr Cordiale to be placed at the disposal of an Italian administration and that, in those circumstances, it was impossible to pay him the allowances that he was claiming and to which he might have been entitled.

By letter of 2 March 1995 addressed to the Secretary General Mr Bruno Cordiale, adviser to the applicant, claimed that the applicant was entitled to the allowances that he was claiming. He then invited the Secretary General to ‘resolve’ that problem.

By letter of 9 March 1995 the Secretary General replied to Mr Bruno Cordiale as follows:

‘Mr Giampaolo Cordiale was indeed informed that we could not apply to him the rules relating to exchanges of staff between the European Parliament and the public sector of Member States, because Miss Giulia Ruaro was not a member of the Italian administration and his secondment to the private office of the [Minister] was a private agreement ... without any financial implications for our group.’

By letter of 22 March 1995 Mr Bruno Cordiale sent the Secretary General, ‘by way of complaint’, a copy of his letter of 2 March 1995 again requesting the payment of the subsistence allowance provided for by the decision of 26 October 1988. The Secretary General did not reply to that letter.

Admissibility

The legal classification of a letter from the applicant as a ‘request’ or a ‘complaint’ is a matter for appraisal by the Court alone and is not determined by the intention of the parties. In so far as the letter invites the competent authority to take a decision relating to him, the applicant's letter of 21 November 1994 does in fact constitute a request within the meaning of Article 90(1) of the Staff Regulations of the European Communities (‘the Staff Regulations’). The letter of 22 February 1995 constitutes the act adversely affecting the applicant. It is in the nature of a decision and produces binding legal effects which affect his interests, by modifying his individual legal position. Even if the letter of 2 March 1995 from Mr Brano Cordiale does not expressly request the withdrawal of the decision of 22 February 1995, that letter expresses the applicant's intention to challenge the decision and clearly seeks to achieve an amicable settlement of his complaints. Consequently, the letter constitutes his complaint pursuant to Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations (paragraphs 34 to 38).

See: 30/68 Lacroix v Commission [1970] ECR 301, para. 4; 19/72 Thomik v Commission [1972] BCR 1155, para. 4; 178/80 Bellardi-Ricci and Others v Commission [1981] ECR 3187, para. 9; 23/87 and 24/87 Aldinger and Virgili v Parliament [1988] ECR 4395, para. 13; T-l/90 Pérez-Mínguez Casariego v Commission [1991] ECR II-143, paras 38 to 40; T-14/91 Weyrich v Commission [1991] ECR II-235, para. 39; T-38/91 Coussiosv Commission [1991] ECR II-763, para. 25; T-64/91 Marcato v Commission [1992] ECR II-243, para. 44; T-115/92 Hogan v Parliament [1993] ECR II-895, para. 36; T-26/96 Lopes v Court of Justice [1996] ECRSC II-1357, para. 19; T-119/96 X v Parliament [1997] ECRSC II-225, para. 20; T-301/97 Feral v Committee of the Regions [1998] ECRSC II-471, para. 22

In those circumstances, in accordance with Article 91(3) of the Staff Regulations, the applicant was required to bring his action within three months of the date of notification of the Secretary General's decision of 9 March 1995. Since he did so only on 31 October 1995, the action is inadmissible (paragraphs 41 and 43).

Operative part:

The action is dismissed as inadmissible.