ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (First Chamber)

4 August 1998

Case T-77/98

Franz Eppe

v

Commission of the European Communities

‛Manifest inadmissibility’

Full text in French II-1347

Application for:

annulment of the Commission's demand for payment of the costs which the applicant was ordered to pay by order of the President of the Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of 13 May 1997 in Case T-99/96 and annulment of the implicit decision rejecting the complaint lodged against that demand for payment.

Decision:

Application dismissed.

Abstract of the Order

By order of 13 May 1997 the President of the Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance ordered the removal from the register of Case T-99/96 and ordered the applicant to pay, in addition to his own costs, two thirds of the costs incurred by the defendant, those costs having been unreasonably and vexatiously caused. Pursuant to that order, the Commission demanded from the applicant payment of the sum of BEF 123333.

By letter of 15 September 1997 the applicant requested the Commission to agree to waive recovery ofthat sum. By letter of 1 October 1997, registered as received on 14 October 1997, the applicant lodged, to the same end, a complaint under Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations of officials of the European Communities (‘the Staff Regulations’). The defendant did not respond to that complaint.

On 15 May 1998 the applicant brought the present proceedings for annulment, first, of the demand for payment of the costs and, second, of the implicit decision rejecting his complaint.

Under Article 111 of the Rules of Procedure, where an action is manifestly inadmissible or manifestly unfounded in law, the Court of First Instance may, by reasoned order, give a decision on the action without taking further steps in the proceedings (paragraph 5).

The existence of an act adversely affecting an official within the meaning of Articles 90(2) and 91(1) of the Staff Regulations is an essential condition for the admissibility of any action brought by officials against the institution by which they are employed (paragraph 7).

See: T-20/92 Moat v Commission [1993] ECR II-799, para. 39

Only acts or decisions producing binding legal consequences likely directly and immediately to affect the applicant's interests by significantly changing his legal situation may be the subject of an action for annulment (paragraph 8).

See: T-586/93 Kotzonis v ESC [1995] ECR II-665, para. 28

The demand for payment of the costs incurred by the Commission in Case T-99/96 is merely the consequence of compliance with the order of 13 May 1997, against which no appeal was lodged within the prescribed period, and thus does not, as such, adversely affect the applicant. Moreover, that demand is manifestly extraneous to the applicant's rights and obligations under the Staff Regulations. It derives from the entitlement to costs awarded to the Commission by the order, and is therefore covered not by the pre-litigation procedure provided for by the Staff Regulations but by the remedy provided for in Article 92(1) of the Rules of Procedure. Consequently, there is no need to consider the claims seeking annulment of the alleged implicit decision rejecting the complaint. The action must therefore be dismissed in its entirety as manifestly inadmissible (paragraphs 9 to 13).

Operative part:

The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.