ORDER OF THE CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL (Second Chamber)

10 July 2008

Case F-141/07

Daniele Maniscalco

v

Commission of the European Communities

(Civil service – Members of the contract staff – Classification in grade – Contract as a member of the contract staff – Admissibility – Acts having an adverse effect – Observance of the time-limits laid down by the Staff Regulations)

Application: brought under Articles 236 EC and 152 EA, in which Mr Maniscalco seeks, essentially, annulment of the decision of the authority authorised to conclude contracts rejecting his complaint against the decision classifying him in Grade 13, step 1, in Function Group IV, as shown in his contract as a member of the contract staff.

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

Summary

1.      Officials – Actions – Prior administrative complaint – Time-limits – Mandatory – Point from which time starts to run

(Staff Regulations, Arts 90(2) and 91; Conditions of Employment of Other Servants, Art. 117)

2.      Procedure – Costs – Application for an appropriate order

(Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal, Art. 87(1))

1.      A contract concluded between a staff member and an institution produces its effects and, therefore, is capable of adversely affecting the staff member from the date of its signature, provided that all the details of the contract are fixed, in particular the staff member’s grading. The period for lodging a complaint in due time against the decision grading a member of the contract staff as shown in his contract, in accordance with Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations, which applies by analogy to members of the contract staff under Article 117 of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants, must therefore be calculated from the date of signature. That finding is not invalidated by the argument that lodging a complaint before the end of the probationary period may lead to the termination of the contract at the end of that period. Taking such a consideration into account would conflict with the purpose of the time-limits prescribed by Articles 90 and 91 of the Staff Regulations for submitting complaints and bringing actions, which were established in order to ensure that legal positions are clear and certain, as well as the fact that those time-limits are a matter of public policy and are not subject to the discretion of the parties or the Court.

(see paras 20, 23, 25, 27)

See:

T-137/99 and T-18/00 Martínez Páramo and Others v Commission [2002] ECR-SC I‑A‑119 and II‑639, paras 54 and 56; T-406/03 Ravailhe v Committee of the Regions [2005] ECR-SC I‑A‑19 and II‑79, para. 57; T-455/04 Beyatli and Candan v Commission [2007] ECR-SC I-A-0000 and II-0000, para. 37

F-105/07 R bis v Commission [2008] ECR-SC I-A-0000 and II-0000, para. 43

2.      Under Article 87(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal, the unsuccessful party is to be ordered to pay the costs if they have been applied for in the successful party’s pleadings. An application made in those pleadings for an appropriate order as to costs cannot be regarded as an application for the unsuccessful party to be ordered to pay the costs.

(see paras 31, 33)

See:

C-30/91 P Lestelle v Commission [1992] ECR I‑3755, para. 38; C‑470/00 P Parliament v Ripa di Meana and Others [2004] ECR I‑4167, para. 86