EUR-Lex & EU Commission AI-Powered Semantic Search Engine
Modern Legal
  • Query in any language with multilingual search
  • Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
  • See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Start free trial

Similar Documents

Explore similar documents to your case.

We Found Similar Cases for You

Sign up for free to view them and see the most relevant paragraphs highlighted.

Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) of 11 December 2007. # Jörn Sack v Commission of the European Communities. # Public service - Official - Action for annulment - Equal treatment - Rules on languages. # Case T-66/05.

ECLI:EU:T:2007:370

62005TJ0066

December 11, 2007
With Google you find a lot.
With us you find everything. Try it now!

I imagine what I want to write in my case, I write it in the search engine and I get exactly what I wanted. Thank you!

Valentina R., lawyer

(Civil service – Official – Action for annulment – Increment – Duties of ‘Head of unit’ – Equal treatment – Duty to state reasons – Rules on use of languages)

Application: for annulment of the decisions relating to the fixing of the applicant’s monthly salary for the months of May 2004 to February 2005, application for a fresh calculation of that salary and action for annulment of the express decision to reject the applicant’s claim, notified to him on 26 November 2004.

Held: The action is dismissed. Each party is to bear its own costs.

Summary

(Staff Regulations, Arts 90 and 91)

(Staff Regulations, Art. 90(2))

3. Officials – Actions – Prior administrative complaint – Date when lodged

(Staff Regulations, Art. 90(2))

4. Officials – Actions – Prior administrative complaint – Collective and individual complaints lodged at the same time

(Staff Regulations, Art. 90(2))

(Art. 253 EC; Staff Regulations, Art. 90(2))

1.As a general rule, salary slips constitute acts adversely affecting an official, against which an action may be brought. However, as far as concerns, more particularly, a salary slip which shows that the appointing authority has decided to refuse an official a financial benefit or to withdraw from him a financial benefit previously granted, it is only the first salary slip showing that decision which constitutes an actionable measure. The salary slips for subsequent months merely confirm that decision and for that reason constitute acts which are purely confirmatory of the first salary slip and cannot be the subject of an action for annulment.

(see para. 31)

See: 262/80 Andersen and Others v Parliament [1984] ECR 195, para. 4; T‑192/99 Dunnett and Others v EIB [2001] ECR II‑813, paras 66 and 69

2.It is for the Court of First Instance to determine the precise legal nature of documents addressed by an official to the appointing authority prior to bringing proceedings, and to identify which of those documents constitutes the complaint required by the Staff Regulations, without being bound by the parties’ characterisation of those documents.

An act of the appointing authority which adversely affects an official may be the subject of only one complaint, lodged against it by the official concerned. Other documents which he may address to the appointing authority after lodging his complaint, even if characterised as complaints, cannot constitute either requests or complaints but must be regarded as purely reiterative of the complaint and cannot therefore prolong the pre-litigation procedure.

Consequently, where two complaints, one individual and the other collective, have the same subject-matter, only one of them, namely the complaint first lodged, constitutes a complaint for the purposes of Article 90 of the Staff Regulations, while the other, lodged subsequently, must be regarded as a note merely reiterating the complaint.

(see paras 36-37, 41)

See: T‑14/91 Weyrich v Commission [1991] ECR II‑235, paras 39 and 41; T‑67/91 Torre v Commission [1992] ECR II‑261, paras 28 and 32

3.The date on which a complaint must be considered to have been lodged is that on which the administration is able to be apprised of it.

In that respect, an official cannot be expected to suffer on account of factors beyond his control which may delay the transmission of his letter of complaint, and he cannot therefore be held responsible for deficiencies or delays in transmission from one department to another within the institution to which the complaint is addressed.

(see paras 38, 44)

See: T‑54/90 Lacroix v Commission [1991] ECR II‑749, paras 29 and 30

4.There is nothing unlawful in the fact that an institution replies jointly, in its decision of rejection, both to an individual complaint and to a collective complaint.

(see para. 64)

See: T‑10/94 Kratz v Commission [1995] ECR II‑1455, para. 20

5.The statement of reasons required by Article 253 EC must be appropriate to the act at issue and must disclose in a clear and unequivocal fashion the reasoning followed by the Community institution in question in such a way as to enable the persons concerned to ascertain the reasons for the measure and to enable the competent Community Court to exercise its power of review. The requirement to state reasons must be appraised by reference, in particular, to the content of the measure in question and the interest which the addressees of the measure, or other parties to whom it is of concern, may have in obtaining explanations. However, it is not necessary for the reasoning to go into all the relevant facts and points of law, since the question whether the statement of reasons meets the requirements of Article 253 EC must be assessed with regard not only to its wording but also to its context and to all the legal rules governing the matter in question.

Although the commencement of proceedings puts an end to the possibility of the appointing authority’s regularising its decision by a reply rejecting the complaint, an inadequate statement of grounds may be remedied in certain exceptional circumstances by additional information provided even during the proceedings if, before his action was brought, the official concerned already had at his disposal information constituting the beginnings of a statement of grounds.

(see paras 65-67)

See: T‑52/90 Volger v Parliament [1992] ECR II‑121, para. 40; T‑117/01 Roman Parra v Commission [2002] ECR-SC I‑A‑27 and II‑121, paras 30 and 32; T‑277/03 Vlachaki v Commission [2005] ECR-SC I‑A‑57 and II‑243, para. 83 and the case-law cited therein; T‑132/03 Casini v Commission [2005] ECR-SC I‑A‑253 and II‑1169, para. 36

6.The principle of equal treatment does not entitle an official to request a financial benefit unlawfully granted to another official.

(see paras 122, 163)

See: 188/83 Witte v Parliament [1984] ECR 3465, para. 15; T‑22/99 Rose v Commission [2000] ECR-SC I‑A‑27 and II‑115, para. 39

7.The concept of a unit, led by a head of unit, must be defined as a separate administrative structure with its own human and, often, financial resources, incorporated into the administrative organisation of an institution.

(see para. 130)

EurLex Case Law

AI-Powered Case Law Search

Query in any language with multilingual search
Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly

Get Instant Answers to Your Legal Questions

Cancel your subscription anytime, no questions asked.Start 14-Day Free Trial

At Modern Legal, we’re building the world’s best search engine for legal professionals. Access EU and global case law with AI-powered precision, saving you time and delivering relevant insights instantly.

Contact Us

Tivolska cesta 48, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia