Staff case summary



Staff case summary

Summary

1. Officials – Decision adversely affecting an official – Obligation to state the reasons on which the decision is based – Scope – Request for reimbursement of medical expenses – Official having not received all the accounts issued by the Settlements Office

(Staff Regulations, Art. 25, second para.)

2. Officials – Actions – Acts adversely affecting an official – Confirmatory measure – Exclusion – Procedure – Objection of lis pendens

(Staff Regulations, Arts 72(1), 90 and 91)

1. A decision rejecting a request for reimbursement of medical expenses contains an adequate statement of reasons where it informs the official of how his request was processed and the factual and legal reasons justifying the recovery, by the European Communities sickness insurance scheme, of the advances he had been paid. Even if he did not receive all the calculations when they were drawn up, the official concerned was given an opportunity to assess whether it was appropriate to initiate proceedings before the Community courts when the missing calculations were attached to the decision rejecting his complaint.

Furthermore, and in any event, even if such a rejection decision did not contain an adequate statement of reasons, it would have to be regarded as containing at the very least the initial elements of such a statement, enabling the institution to provide additional information during the proceedings and to fulfil its obligation to state the reasons for its decision.

(see paras 53, 58-59)

See:

T-37/89 Hanning v Parliament [1990] ECR II‑463, paras 41 and 44

2. A decision rejecting a request for 100% payment of medical expenses which does not contain any new factors compared with an identical request previously rejected and having been the subject of an action before the Community courts does not alter the applicant’s legal position and therefore does not constitute an act adversely affecting him within the meaning of Articles 90 and 91 of the Staff Regulations.

Even if such a decision could be regarded as a measure confirming the first decision, and thus as indissociable from that decision and to that extent capable of having an adverse effect, the Community court hearing an action against that decision should observe, of its own motion, that the action involves the same parties, has the same purpose and is based on the same grounds. In such circumstances the action would be manifestly inadmissible on the grounds of lis pendens.

(see paras 67-68)

See:

58/72 and 75/72 Perinciolo v Council [1973] ECR 511, paras 3 to 5; 172/83 and 226/83 Hoogovens Groep v Commission [1985] ECR 2831, para. 9

Judgment of 14 June 2007 in T-68/07 Landtag Schleswig-Holstein v Commission , not published in the ECR, para. 16; judgment of 9 July 2008 in T-296/05 and T-408/05 Marcuccio v Commission , not published in the ECR, paras 47 to 49, on appeal before the Court of Justice, Case C‑432/08 P; T-143/08 Marcuccio v Commission [2008] ECR-SC I‑A‑2‑0000 and II‑A‑2‑0000, paras 39 to 41, on appeal before the Court of Justice, Case C‑513/08 P; T-144/08 Marcuccio v Commission [2008] ECR-SC I‑A‑1‑0000 and II‑A‑1‑0000, paras 32 to 34, on appeal before the Court of Justice, Case C‑528/08 P

F-80/06 Duyster v Commission [2008] ECR-SC I‑A‑1‑0000 and II‑A‑1‑0000, para. 52; F-73/08 Marcuccio v Commission [2009] ECR-SC I‑A‑1‑0000 and II‑A‑1‑0000, para. 61, on appeal before the Court of First Instance, Case T‑311/09 P