CELEX: 62007FO0146
Language: en
Date: 2009-03-31 00:00:00
Title: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 31 March 2009. # Luigi Marcuccio v Commission of the European Communities. # Public service - Officials - Manifest inadmissibility. # Case F-146/07.

ORDER OF THE CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL 
      (First Chamber)
      31 March 2009 
      Case F-146/07
      Luigi Marcuccio
      v
      Commission of the European Communities 
      (Civil service – Officials – Request for an investigation into an accident of which the applicant claims to have been the victim – Action for damages – Action manifestly unfounded in law – Manifest inadmissibility)
      Application: brought under Articles 236 EC and 152 EA, in which Mr Marcuccio seeks, in particular, annulment of the Commission’s decision
         not to grant his request to open an investigation into an incident which allegedly occurred when he was posted to the Commission’s
         delegation in Angola, as well as compensation for the damage he allegedly suffered in connection with that incident.
      
      Held: The action is dismissed as partly manifestly inadmissible and partly manifestly unfounded in law. The applicant is ordered
         to pay the costs.
      
      Summary
      Officials – Actions – Prior administrative complaint – Time-limits – Claim barred by lapse of time – Reopening – Condition
            – New fact
      (Staff Regulations, Arts 90 and 91)
      The possibility of submitting a request as provided for in Article 90(1) of the Staff Regulations does not allow an official
         to set aside the time-limits laid down in Articles 90 and 91 of the Staff Regulations for the lodging of a complaint and an
         appeal by indirectly calling in question, by means of a request, a previous decision which had not been challenged within
         the time-limits. It follows that only the existence of important new facts is capable of justifying the submission of a request
         for reconsideration of a decision which is no longer open to challenge.
      
      (see paras 39, 47)
      See:
      232/85 Becker v Commission [1986] ECR 3401, para. 8