(Officials – Appointment of a deputy head of unit and a head of section – Measure adversely affecting the applicant – None – Inadmissible)

Full text in Greek II - 0000

Application: for annulment of the decisions by the Commission appointing a deputy head of the ‘Internal Policies, Central Administration, CCR and Agencies’ Unit of the ‘Financial Control’ Directorate-General and a head of section for the ‘Internal Policies and Agencies’ section of that unit.

Held: The application is dismissed as being inadmissible. The parties are ordered to bear their own costs, including the costs relating to the application for interim relief.

Summary

Officials – Actions – Act adversely affecting an official – Definition – Organisational measure internal to department – Not included – Exceptions

(Staff Regulations, Arts 90(2) and 91(1))

The existence of an act adversely affecting the official concerned within the meaning of Articles 90(2) and 91(1) of the Staff Regulations is an essential condition for the admissibility of any action brought by officials against the institution by which they are employed.

An official is adversely affected by an act only where it is such as to have a direct effect on his position in law and thus goes beyond measures which, concerning only the internal organisation of the departments, do not adversely affect the position of the official concerned under the Staff Regulations or infringe the principle that the post to which an official is assigned should correspond to his grade. Such a measure falls within the discretionary power which each administration has to allocate duties among the members of its staff. However, certain decisions, even though they do not affect an official’s pecuniary interests or his rank, may be regarded as acts adversely affecting that official if they adversely affect his non-pecuniary interests or future prospects.

Only special circumstances which provided the grounds for measures of internal organisation may render an appeal against such measures admissible. That may be the case where the decision in question is in the nature of a covert penalty, where it discloses an intention to discriminate against the official concerned or where it is vitiated by a misuse of powers.

(see paras 21-23)

See: T-20/92 Moat v Commission [1993] ECR II-799, para. 39; T-36/93 Ojha v Commission [1995] ECR-SC I-A-161 and II-497, paras 41 and 42; T-78/96 and T-170/96 W v Commission [1998] ECR-SC I-A-239 and II-745, para. 45; T-178/97 Moncada v Commission [1998] ECR-SC I-A-339 and II-989, para. 33; T-129/98 Sabbioni v Commission [1999] ECR-SC I-A-223 and II-1139, para. 45