- Query in any language with multilingual search
- Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
- See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Similar Documents
Explore similar documents to your case.We Found Similar Cases for You
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.
ECLI:EU:F:2009:59
62008FO0081
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
Case F‑81/08
(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
(Staff Regulations, Arts 90 and 91)
(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)
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:
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