ORDER OF THE CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL

(First Chamber)

6 March 2008

Case F-105/07

R bis

v

Commission of the European Communities

(Civil service – Officials – Action – Action for damages – Conditions under which the probationary period progressed – Extension of probationary period – Establishment as an official – Manifest inadmissibility)

Application: brought under Articles 236 EC and 152 EA, in which R bis seeks in particular annulment of the Commission’s decision of 27 June 2007 rejecting her complaint of 13 March 2007 against the rejection of her claim for compensation, brought on 8 November 2006; in so far as is necessary, annulment of the Commission’s decision of 13 February 2007 rejecting her complaint and claim for compensation, brought on 8 November 2006, and annulment of the Commission’s decision of 19 December 2005 rejecting her complaint and claim for compensation of 17 August 2005; and an order for the Commission to pay her compensation of EUR 2 500 000 for the damage which she claims to have suffered because of the institution.

Held: The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible. Each party is to bear its own costs.

Summary

1. Procedure – Admissibility of actions – Assessment by reference to the rules in force when the application was lodged

(Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal, Art. 76)

2. Officials – Actions – Prior administrative complaint – Time-limits

(Staff Regulations, Arts 90 and 91)

3. Procedure – Costs – Action before the Civil Service Tribunal

(Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal, Art. 122)

1. Although the rule laid down in Article 76 of the Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal that the Tribunal may, by way of an order, dismiss an action which appears manifestly bound to fail is a procedural rule which, as such, applies to all proceedings pending before the Tribunal at the time when it enters into force, the same is not true of rules on the basis of which the Tribunal may, under that article, regard an action as manifestly inadmissible, and which may only be those applicable on the date when the action is brought.

(see para. 35)

2. The time-limits prescribed in Articles 90 and 91 of the Staff Regulations, being designed to ensure legal certainty, are a matter of public policy and are binding on the parties and the Court. An official cannot therefore revive for himself a right of appeal against a decision which has become definitive upon the expiry of the time-limits for appeal by submitting a request to the appointing authority under Article 90(1) of the Staff Regulations. Consequently, a fresh claim for damages cannot re-open the time-limit for appeal which runs from the date on which the applicant receives the decision rejecting the complaint he has made against the rejection of his first claim for compensation for non-material, professional and material damage.

(see paras 43, 44)

See:

T-495/93 Carrer and Others v Court of Justice [1994] ECR-SC I‑A‑201 and II‑651, para. 20; T-42/97 Lebedef v Commission [1998] ECR-SC I‑A‑371 and II‑1071, para. 25

3. The provisions on costs in the Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal do not apply, under Article 122 of those Rules, to cases brought before the Rules came into force. It is not relevant here that the service on the defendant of an application, brought before the Rules came into force, was delayed until a later date in order to correct formal irregularities in the documents lodged by the applicant, since under Article 8(1) of the Instructions to the Registrar of the Civil Service Tribunal, that fact has no effect on the date when the action is brought.

(see paras 49, 50)