CELEX: 62008FO0081
Language: en
Date: 2009-06-11 00:00:00
Title: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 11 June 2009. # Zoe Ketselidou v Commission of the European Communities. # Public service - Officials. # Case F-81/08.

ORDER OF THE CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL
      (Third Chamber)
      11 June 2009
      Case F‑81/08
      Zoe Ketselidou
      v
      Commission of the European Communities 
      (Civil service – Officials – Action – Judgment of a Community court – Substantial new fact – None)
      Application: brought under Articles 236 EC and 152 EA, in which Ms Ketselidou seeks annulment of the Commission’s decision of 10 January
         2008 rejecting her request for revision of the calculation of her pension annuities resulting from the transfer to the Community
         scheme of the actuarial equivalent of pension rights she had acquired in Greece.
      
      Held: The application is dismissed as manifestly unfounded. The applicant is ordered to pay the costs in their entirety.
      
      Summary
      1.      Officials – Actions – Time-limits – Reconsideration of an administrative decision that has become definitive
      (Staff Regulations, Arts 90 and 91)
      2.      Officials – Actions – Prior administrative complaint – Time-limits – Claim barred by lapse of time – Reopening – Condition
            – New fact
      (Staff Regulations, Arts 90 and 91)
      1.      The existence of a new and substantial fact may warrant the submission of a request for reconsideration of a decision that
         has become definitive upon expiry of the time-limits for appeal. The fact in question must be capable of substantially changing
         the situation of the person seeking reconsideration of that decision. Furthermore, it is for the person concerned to submit
         his administrative request within a reasonable period. His interest in seeking to bring his administrative situation into
         line with new rules must be weighed against the need for legal certainty.
      
      (see paras 32-36)
      See:
      231/84 Valentini v Commission [1985] ECR 3027, para. 14; 232/85 Becker v Commission [1986] ECR 3401, para. 10
      
      T‑495/93 Carrer and Others v Court of Justice [1994] ECR‑SC I‑A‑201 and II‑651, para. 20; T‑202/97 Koopman v Commission [1998] ECR‑SC I‑A‑163 and II‑511, para. 24; T‑42/97 Lebedef v Commission [1998] ECR‑SC I‑A‑371 and II‑1071, para. 25; T‑186/98 Inpesca v Commission [2001] ECR II‑557, para. 51
      
      F‑92/05 Genette v Commission [2007] ECR‑SC I‑A‑1‑0000 and II‑A‑1‑0000, para. 62
      
      2.      The finding, by a judgment of a Community court, that an administrative decision of general application infringes the Staff
         Regulations cannot constitute, in respect of officials who have failed to make use in good time of the possible remedies offered
         by the Staff Regulations, a new fact warranting the submission of a request for reconsideration of individual decisions which
         the appointing authority has adopted concerning them.
      
      (see para. 47)
      See:
      T‑16/97 Chauvin v Commission [1997] ECR-SC I‑A‑237 and II‑681, paras 39 to 45; T‑165/97 Gómez de la Cruz Talegón v Commission [2000] ECR‑SC I‑A‑19 and II‑79, para. 51