CELEX: 62005FJ0072
Language: en
Date: 2007-03-01
Title: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 1 March 2007. # Mohammad Reza Fardoom and Michael Ashbrook v Commission of the European Communities. # Officials - Inadmissibility. # Case F-72/05.

JUDGMENT OF THE CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL
       (Second Chamber)
      1 March 2007 
      Case F-72/05
      Mohammad Reza Fardoom and Michael Ashbrook
      v
      Commission of the European Communities 
      (Officials – Reimbursement of expenses – Mission expenses – Refusal to sign the travel orders requested in the context of union activities – Interest in bringing an action – Inadmissibility)
      Application: brought under Articles 236 EC and 152 EA, in which Mr Fardoom and Mr Ashbrook seek annulment of the decisions of 4 November
         2004 of the Head of Unit for ‘Social dialogue, enlargement and relations with national public administrations’ of the Directorate-General
         for Personnel and Administration refusing to sign the travel orders submitted in order to attend a meeting on 13 September
         2004 organised by the Member of the Commission responsible for administrative affairs, audit and anti-fraud.
      
      Held: The application is dismissed. The parties are ordered to bear their own costs.
      
      Summary
      Officials – Actions – Interest in bringing an action 
      (Staff Regulations, Arts 60, first para., 90 and 91)
      An official cannot demonstrate a vested, current interest in bringing an action for annulment against a decision refusing
         to sign a ‘no expenses’ travel order, in other words one which gives rise to no reimbursement of travel costs or daily allowances,
         where that refusal has not resulted in the official’s absence being set against his annual leave. Since the annulment of the
         contested decision has no effect on his financial situation, he cannot rely on an interest that is merely and, in the present
         case, broadly hypothetical, based on the possibility that the administration may set that absence against his annual leave
         in future.
      
      (see paras 35-37)