CELEX: 62008FO0056
Language: en
Date: 2009-06-04 00:00:00
Title: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 4 June 2009. # Jorge de Britto Patricio-Dias v Commission of the European Communities. # Public service - Officials - Manifest inadmissibility. # Case F-56/08.

ORDER OF THE CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL 
      (First Chamber)
      4 June 2009
      Case F-56/08
      Jorge de Britto Patricio-Dias
      v
      Commission of the European Communities 
      (Civil service – Officials – Joint Sickness Insurance Scheme – Primary cover for dependent children by the Joint Sickness Insurance Scheme – Lack of complaint – Manifest inadmissibility)
      Application: brought under Articles 236 EC and 152 EA, in which Mr de Britto Patricio-Dias contests the Commission’s decision refusing
         his dependent children primary cover under the European Community institutions’ Joint Sickness Insurance Scheme.
      
      Held: The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible. The applicant is ordered to pay the costs.
      
      Summary
      1.      Action for annulment – Actionable measures – Definition – Measures capable of affecting a given legal position – Action brought
            solely against the statement of reasons for a measure – Inadmissibility
      (Art. 230 EC)
      2.      Officials – Actions – Prior administrative complaint – None – Inadmissibility
      (Staff Regulations, Arts 90 and 91)
      1.      Only measures which give rise to binding legal effects capable of directly and immediately affecting the applicant’s interests
         by significantly altering his legal position constitute acts or decisions the annulment of which may be sought. An action
         for annulment is not available, on the other hand, against the grounds for such acts, since they do not constitute the necessary
         support for the operative part of an act adversely affecting a person’s interests.
      
      (see para. 15)
      See:
      T-138/89 NBV and NVB v Commission [1992] ECR II‑2181, para. 31
      
      2.      Under Article 91(2) of the Staff Regulations, appeals against an act adversely affecting an official lie only if the appointing
         authority has previously had a complaint submitted to it pursuant to Article 90(2) within the required time limit, and if
         that complaint has been rejected expressly or by implication.
      
      (see para. 16)
      See:
      T-108/99 Reggimenti v Parliament [1999] ECR-SC I‑A‑243 and II‑1205, para. 19