ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Fourth Chamber)

20 March 1998

Case T-301/97

Pierre-Alexis Feral

v

Committee of the Regions

‛Officials — Time-limit for submitting complaints — Manifest inadmissibility of the action’

Full text in French II-471

Application for:

annulment of the decision of 2 September 1997 of the Committee of the Regions refusing to pay the applicant the daily subsistence allowance provided for by the first subparagraph of Article 10(2), point (b), of Amiex VII to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communities.

Decision:

Application dismissed.

Abstract of the Order

The applicant, Mr Feral, took up employment with the Committee of the Regions (‘COR’) on 16 May 1994, as a member of the auxiliary staff. On 1 January 1995 he was appointed as a probationary official in the Directorate for the Registry, the Legal Service and Research of the COR. His probationary period came to an end on 16 January 1997.

By letter of 1 July 1996 the applicant submitted a request under Article 90(1) of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communities (‘Staff Regulations’) for the application of Article 10 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations concerning the ‘daily subsistence allowance’. In a memorandum of 9 October addressed to the applicant the Secretary-General of the COR stated that the administration had decided to grant his request (‘decision of 9 October 1996’). On 13 November 1996 the applicant's bank account was credited with an amount equivalent to the daily subsistence allowance in respect of a period of 120 days.

By letter dated 14 February 1997 the applicant submitted a second request under Article 90(1) of the Staff Regulations again seeking ‘the full and correct application of Article 10 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations concerning the “daily subsistence allowance”’. He claimed that there had been an incorrect application in his case of the first subparagraph of Article 10(2), point (a), of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations which limits the period in respect of which the allowance is paid to 120 days, whereas the first subparagraph of Article 10(2), point (b), limiting the period of payment of the allowance to ‘the period of probation plus one month’, ‘if the official is a probationer’, should have been applied.

By letter of 2 September 1997 (‘decision of 2 September 1997’) the Secretary-General of the COR informed the applicant that his request amounted ‘de facto and de jure to a “complaint” under Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations concerning the period in respect of which daily subsistence allowances are paid’. He rejected the complaint as inadmissible on the ground that the applicant did not lodge it against the decision of 9 October 1996 within the period of three months laid down by the Staff Regulations.

Admissibility

The time-limits prescribed by Articles 90 and 91 of the Staff Regulations for submitting complaints and bringing actions are a matter of public policy. Even where the administration has replied at the pre-litigation stage to the arguments put forward by the complainant on the substance of his claim, the Court is not exempted from the obligation to verify whether the action is admissible from the point of view of observance of the time-limits laid down by the Staff Regulations (paragraph 19).

See: 227/83 Moussis v Commission [1984] ECR 3133, paras 12 and 13; T-l 15/92 Hogan v Parliament [1993] ECR II-895, para. 31

The precise legal categorisation of a letter or memorandum is a matter for the Court alone and not for the parties. A letter from an official which does not expressly request the withdrawal of the decision in question but is clearly intended to achieve an amicable settlement of his complaints constitutes a complaint within the meaning of Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations, as does a letter which clearly manifests the applicant's intention to challenge the decision which adversely affects him (paragraph 22).

See: Hogan v Parliament, cited above, paragraph 36

In this case, it is clear from the wording of the letter of 14 February 1997 that the applicant was contesting the decision to grant him an amount equivalent to a daily subsistence allowance in respect of only 120 days. It must therefore be categorised as a complaint under Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations against the decision of 9 October 1996 (paragraphs 23 and 24).

Since it is not proven that the applicant knew of the decision of 9 October 1996 before the expiry of the period of four months available to the COR for taking a decision on the request of 1 July 1996, under the third indent of the first subparagraph of Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations, the complaint should have been submitted by 4 February 1997 at the latest (paragraph 25).

See: T-247/97 Lonuzzo-Murgantev Parliament [1998] ECRSC II-317, para. 42

Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations does not provide that an explicit decision taken after the implied decision rejecting a request made under Article 90(1) of the Staff Regulations causes the period for submitting complaints to run afresh. The fact that, in this case, the applicant became aware of the explicit decision of the administration when he received his bank statement of 15 November 1996 is thus of no relevance (paragraph 26).

As the complaint is inadmissible since it was not lodged within the period prescribed, the application itself is manifestly inadmissible (paragraphs 27 and 28).

Operative part:

The application is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.