CELEX: 62008FO0028
Language: en
Date: 2008-07-15 00:00:00
Title: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 15 July 2008. # Michel Pouzol v Court of Auditors of the European Communities. # Public service - Officials - Inadmissibility. # Case F-28/08.

ORDER OF THE CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL (First Chamber)
      15 July 2008 
      Case F-28/08
      Michel Pouzol
      v
      Court of Auditors of the European Communities
      (Civil service – Officials – Pensions – Transfer of pension rights acquired before entry into the Communities’ service – Confirmatory decisions – Inadmissibility)
      Application: brought under Articles 236 EC and 152 EA, in which Mr Pouzol seeks, in particular, annulment of the Court of Auditors’ decision
         of 29 November 2007 rejecting his complaint against the decisions of 10 May 2007 establishing the additional years of Community
         pensionable service resulting from the transfer of his pension rights acquired in France under supplementary pension schemes,
         and recognition, in respect of that transfer, of 10 years, 3 months and 24 days of additional Community pensionable service.
      
      Held: The action is dismissed as inadmissible. The applicant is ordered to pay the costs.
      
      Summary
      Officials – Actions – Act adversely affecting an official – Definition – Purely confirmatory measure – Not included
      (Staff Regulations, Arts 90(2) and 91(1))
      An action for annulment of a measure merely confirming a previous decision which was not challenged within the prescribed
         period is inadmissible. A decision is a mere confirmation of an earlier decision where it contains no new factors as compared
         with the earlier measure and is not preceded by any re-examination which is genuine and detailed, or based on new factors,
         of the situation of the person to whom the earlier measure was addressed. The correction of a material error not affecting
         the actual content of the measure does not, in itself, constitute a new decision.
      
      (see paras 45, 47, 60)
      See:
      54/77 Herpels v Commission [1978] ECR 585, paras 11 to 14; 23/80 Grasselli v Commission [1980] ECR 3709, para 18; 294/84 Adams and Others v Commission [1986] ECR 977, paras 14 to 16; C-30/93 AC‑ATEL Electronics Vertriebs [1994] ECR I‑2305, para. 24
      
      T‑191/96 and T‑106/97 CAS Succhi di Frutta v Commission [1999] ECR II‑3181, para. 60; T-83/99 to T-85/99 Ripa di Meana and Others v Parliament [2000] ECR II‑3493, paras 33 and 34
      
      F-78/06 Suhadolnik v Court of Justice [2006] ECR-SC I-A-1-191 and II-A-1-795, paras 31 and 32