(Staff cases – Act adversely affecting an official – Capacity to bring proceedings – Official acting personally and not on behalf of a trade union organisation – Inadmissibility)

Full text in French II - 0000

Application: for annulment of the Commission’s decision of 4 October 2002 rejecting the complaint brought by Mr Hecq, acting both personally and in his capacity as President of the Syndicat des fonctionnaires internationaux et européens, against various decisions relating to the representation of staff and the resources made available by the Commission, and for compensation for the damage allegedly suffered as a result of those decisions.

Held: The application is dismissed as inadmissible. The applicant is ordered to bear his own costs and to pay those of the Commission.

Summary

1. Officials – Actions – Prior administrative complaint – Requirement that subject-matter and grounds be the same – Pleas and arguments not appearing in the complaint but closely linked to it – Admissibility

(Staff Regulations, Arts 90 and 91)

(Staff Regulations, Arts 90 and 91)

(Staff Regulations, Arts 90 and 91)

(Staff Regulations, Arts 90 and 91)

1. The object of the pre-litigation procedure is to permit an amicable settlement of the differences which have arisen between officials or servants and the administration. In order that such a procedure may fulfil its purpose, it is necessary for the appointing authority to be in a position to know in sufficient detail the criticisms made by those concerned of the contested decision. Furthermore, in actions brought by officials, the claims put before the Court may only have the same subject-matter as those made in the complaint and may not contain heads of claims based on matters other than those relied on in the complaint. The submissions and arguments made to the Court in support of those heads of claim need not necessarily appear in the complaint, but must be closely linked to it. Finally, since the pre-litigation procedure is informal in character and those concerned are generally acting without the assistance of a lawyer at that stage, the administration must not interpret the complaints restrictively but, on the contrary, must consider them with an open mind.

(see para. 21)

See: 133/88 Del Amo Martinez v Parliament [1989] ECR 689, paras 9 to 11; T‑127/00 Nevin v Commission [2002] ECR-SC I-A-149 and II-781, para. 28

(see paras 33-35)

See: T-576/93 to T‑582/93 Browet and Others v Commission [1994] ECR II-677, para. 44

(see paras 39, 57)

See: 153/79 Bowden and Others v Commission [1981] ECR 2111, para. 13; T‑97/92 and T-111/92 Rijnoudt and Hocken v Commission [1994] ECR-SC I‑A‑159 and II-511, para. 41

(see para. 64)

See: T-11/90 H. S. v Council [1992] ECR II-1869, para. 25; T-213/99 Verheyden v Commission [2000] ECR-SC I‑A-297 and II-1355, para. 35