31

In the fourth place, the Tribunal considered the appellants’ claims for damages. In paragraphs 106 to 113 of the judgment under appeal, it dismissed them for the following reasons: ‘106 The pre-litigation procedure in an action for damages differs depending on whether the damage for which compensation is sought is the result of an act adversely affecting the person concerned within the meaning of Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations or of conduct by the administration which contains nothing in the nature of a decision. In the first situation, it is for the person concerned to lodge a complaint with the appointing authority or the AECE, within the period prescribed, against the act in question. In the second situation, by contrast, the administrative procedure must begin with the submission of a request for compensation pursuant to Article 90(1) of the Staff Regulations and continue, where appropriate, with the lodging of a complaint against the decision rejecting that request (order of 25 February 1992, Marcato v Commission, T‑64/91, EU:T:1992:22, paragraphs 32 and 33; judgment of 6 November 1997, Liao v Council, T‑15/96, EU:T:1997:169, paragraph 57; and order of 20 March 2014, Michel v Commission, F‑44/13, EU:F:2014:40, paragraph 43). 107 In that regard, according to settled case-law, the legal classification of something written by an official as a “request” within the meaning of Article 90(1) of the Staff Regulations or as a “complaint” within the meaning of Article 90(2) of those regulations is a matter for the Court alone and not for the parties (judgments of 30 April 1998, Cordiale v Parliament, T‑205/95, EU:T:1998:76, paragraph 34, and 15 February 2011AH v Commission, F‑76/09, EU:F:2011:12, paragraph 38; and order of 16 December 2015 in Bärwinkel v Council, F‑118/14, EU:F:2015:154, paragraph 61). 108 In the present case, it is common ground that, in the contested decision, the AECE of CEPOL did not take a position on the financial consequences under the Staff Regulations for each individual applicant. In particular, no mention is made in that decision of the application of the correction coefficient provided for Hungary instead of the correction coefficient provided for the United Kingdom. 109 Thus, it is apparent from the case file that — as CEPOL contends — it was only in their respective complaints that the applicants, who had at that time already agreed to take up their duties in Budapest, formally submitted a request to the AECE of CEPOL for the taking up of their duties to be accompanied by measures intended to provide fair compensation for the reduction in their net income resulting from, in particular, in this instance, the application of the correction coefficient provided for Hungary. Consequently, the Tribunal considers that the applicants’ claim seeking fair financial compensation in connection with their taking up their respective duties in Budapest constituted a request within the meaning of Article 90(1) of the Staff Regulations, a request which the AECE of CEPOL rejected in the decisions rejecting the complaints. 110 Therefore, given that, prior to bringing the present action, the applicants did not lodge a complaint, pursuant to Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations, against the refusal by the AECE of CEPOL, as expressed in the decisions rejecting the complaints, to grant them fair financial compensation, the applicants’ claims for damages in connection with the material damage which they claim to have suffered must be dismissed as inadmissible for failing to meet the requirements of the pre-litigation procedure. 111 In any event, even assuming that the claims for damages relating to the material damage can be regarded as closely linked to the claims for annulment of the contested decision and the decisions rejecting the complaints, the fate of those claims for damages must mirror that of the claims for annulment and, accordingly, the claims for damages must be dismissed in any event (judgment of 15 December 2015, Bonazzi v Commission, F‑88/15, EU:F:2015:150, paragraph 105 and the case-law cited). 112 In the same vein, as was recalled in paragraph 84 above, in the context of the reassignment of officials and members of staff to another place of employment within the institution or agency in which they took up their duties, the constraints of a personal and family nature to which those conditions may give rise in the operation of the service are compensated for by the financial benefits laid down in the Staff Regulations, in particular the expatriation allowance, the installation allowance, the daily allowances and the reimbursement of the costs of relocating to the new place of employment and travel to the place of origin. 113 As regards the applicants’ claims that they should continue to benefit from the correction coefficient applicable to the United Kingdom after taking up their respective duties in Budapest, those claims must be dismissed, as was found in paragraphs 95 to 98 above.’