ORDER OF THE EUROPEAN UNION CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL

(Third Chamber)

16 July 2014

Case F‑114/13

Robert Klar and Francisco Fernandez Fernandez

v

European Commission

(Civil service — Commission’s staff committee — Central committee — Appointment of members of the Luxembourg local section to the central staff committee — Revocation by the local section of the authority of one of its members appointed to the central committee — Refusal by the appointing authority to recognise the lawfulness of the revocation decision — Interest in bringing proceedings — Failure to comply with the pre-litigation procedure — Complaint out of time — Manifest inadmissibility)

Application: under Article 270 TFEU, applicable to the EAEC Treaty pursuant to Article 106a thereof, in which Mr Klar and Mr Fernandez Fernandez seek annulment of the (in their view undatable) decision of the appointing authority of the European Commission ‘refusing to recognise the lawfulness of the decision of the Luxembourg [(Luxembourg)] local staff committee revoking the authority granted to Mr Delgado-Sáez to represent it within the Commission’s central staff committee’.

Held: The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible. Mr Klar and Mr Fernandez Fernandez are to bear their own costs and are ordered to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.

Summary

1. Actions brought by officials — Interest in bringing proceedings — Authority granted by a local staff committee to a member of the central committee — Decision refusing to recognise the lawfulness of the revocation of that authority — Action brought by members of the local committee — Admissibility

(Staff Regulations, Arts 90 and 91)

2. Actions brought by officials — Act adversely affecting an official — Concept — Decision of the appointing authority seeking to ensure the lawfulness of the appointment of representatives of a local section of the Commission’s staff committee to the institution’s central staff committee

(Staff Regulations, Arts 90 and 91)

1. A decision of the appointing authority refusing to recognise the lawfulness of a decision taken by a local staff committee to revoke the authority of a member of the central committee, which is addressed to, through its chairman, the local committee and therefore its members, is capable of affecting the rights and powers, particularly as regards the appointment of members of the central committee, of local committee members, who therefore have an interest in bringing an action against such a decision.

(see para. 52)

2. Measures taken in connection with the obligation incumbent upon every institution to ensure the lawfulness of elections to and the subsequent composition of staff representative bodies, such as local sections and the central staff committee, constitute decisions specific to that institution. Officials and other staff members wishing to bring an action against that type of decision are required, if the subsequent action is not to be inadmissible, to lodge their complaint within the time-limits laid down in Articles 90 and 91 of the Staff Regulations.

In an action against the appointing authority’s refusal to recognise the lawfulness of a decision taken by a local staff committee of an institution to revoke the authority of a representative in the central committee, an administrative decision requesting a local section of the institution’s staff committee to act in a specific manner constitutes an act having adverse effects against which the complaint must be lodged.

(see paras 58, 59, 66)

See:

judgment in de Dapper and Others v Parliament, 54/75, EU:C:1976:127, para. 23

judgment in Marx Esser and Del Amo Martinez v Parliament, T‑182/94, EU:T:1996:130, para. 34

judgment in Milella and Campanella v Commission, F‑71/05, EU:F:2007:184, para. 54