CELEX: 62006FO0141
Language: en
Date: 2007-07-17 00:00:00
Title: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 17 July 2007. # Marc Hartwig v European Parliament and Commission of the European Communities. # Public service - Officials - Objection of inadmissibility. # Case F-141/06.

ORDER OF THE CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL (Second Chamber)
      17 July 2007
      Case F-141/06
      Marc Hartwig
      v
      European Parliament and Commission of the European Communities
      (Civil service – Officials – Preliminary issues – Objection of inadmissibility)
      Application: brought under Articles 236 EC and 152 EA, in which Mr Hartwig seeks annulment of Parliament’s decision of 27 March 2006 and
         the Commission’s decision of 12 April 2006 in so far as they classify him in grade B*3.
      
      Held: The action is dismissed as inadmissible in so far as it concerns Parliament. Parliament is to bear its own costs. The applicant
         and the Commission are to bear their own costs relating to the proceedings on the plea of inadmissibility. The remainder of
         the costs are reserved.
      
      Summary
      Officials – Actions – Prior administrative complaint – Formal conditions 
      (Staff Regulations, Art. 90(2))
      Since an administrative complaint lodged by an official does not need to take any particular form, a document sent electronically
         which clearly and precisely manifests its author’s intention to challenge a decision taken concerning him constitutes a complaint
         within the meaning of Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations.
      
      A complaint is deemed to be lodged when it reaches the institution to which it is addressed. That is not the case with a complaint
         sent to an incorrect electronic address, even if it is likely to reach the institution’s general server, without the sender
         receiving an error message.
      
      An official exercising due care who chooses to submit his complaint electronically must make sure that the addressee’s address
         is correct and that the document has been safely received, for instance by telephoning the addressee or requesting a document
         proving receipt of the email. That basic precaution is all the more necessary since the communication techniques currently
         used within the institutions cannot definitely guarantee, particularly where the terms preceding the ‘@’ sign are incorrect
         or inaccurate, that the document in question will be automatically redistributed to the addressee or, at the very least, that
         an error message in the form of an autoreply will be sent to the sender.
      
      (see paras 26-30, 32)
      See:
      167/86 Rousseau v Court of Auditors [1988] ECR 2705, para. 8; 23/87 and 24/87 Aldinger and Virgili v Parliament [1988] ECR 4395, para. 13
      
      T-54/90 Lacroix v Commission [1991] ECR II‑749, paras 28 and 29; T-354/03 Reggimenti v Parliament [2005] ECR-SC I‑A‑33 and II‑147, para. 43
      
      F-3/05 Schmit v Commission [2006] ECR-SC I-A-1-9 and II-A-1-33, para. 28