CELEX: 62007FO0023
Language: en
Date: 2007-10-19 00:00:00
Title: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 19 October 2007. # M v European Medicines Agency (EMEA). # Public service - Officials - Manifest inadmissibility. # Case F-23/07.

ORDER OF THE CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL (First Chamber)
      19 October 2007
      Case F-23/07
      M
      v
      European Medicines Agency (EMEA)
      (Civil service – Officials – Invalidity – Invalidity Committee – Refusal to convene – Manifest inadmissibility)
      Application: brought under Articles 236 EC and 152 EA, in which M seeks annulment of the decision of the EMEA of 25 October 2006 rejecting
         his application for an Invalidity Committee to be convened, and of the decision of the EMEA of 31 January 2007 rejecting his
         claim for compensation.
      
      Held: The action is dismissed as inadmissible. Each party is to bear its own costs.
      
      Summary
      1.      Officials – Actions – Act adversely affecting an official – Decision repeating the position adopted in the initial decision
            – Act merely confirming a decision – Inadmissibility 
      (Staff Regulations, Arts 90 and 91)
      2.      Officials – Actions – Action for annulment not brought within the time-limit – Action for damages aiming to achieve the same
            result – Inadmissibility 
      (Staff Regulations, Arts 90 and 91)
      1.      A decision by which the administration, in the absence of any change in the state of health of the official in question, merely
         repeats its refusal to convene an Invalidity Committee is an act merely confirming a decision and not a new decision having
         the effect of setting the time-limit for appeal running again, even if that decision is taken in the light of a medical report
         which was not available when the administration adopted its initial position.
      
      (see paras 40, 43)
      See:
      214/85 Gherardi Dandolo v Commission [1987] ECR 2163, paras 15 to 17
      
      2.      An action for damages is not admissible where the official seeks to obtain the same result as he would have obtained had he
         been successful in an action for annulment which he failed to commence in due time. An official who has failed to bring, within
         the periods laid down in Articles 90 and 91 of the Staff Regulations, an action for annulment of a measure alleged to have
         adversely affected him cannot repair that omission and thus obtain further time for bringing proceedings by lodging a claim
         for compensation for the damage caused by that measure.
      
      (see para. 45)
      See:
      346/87 Bossi v Commission [1989] ECR 303, para. 32
      
      T-20/92 Moat v Commission [1993] ECR II‑799, para. 46; T-147/04 Ross v Commission [2005] ECR-SC I‑A‑171 and II‑771, para. 48