ORDER OF THE EUROPEAN UNION CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL

(First Chamber)

18 September 2014

Case F‑118/13

Giorgio Lebedef

v

European Commission

(Civil service — Preliminary issues — Manifest inadmissibility)

Application:      under Article 270 TFEU, applicable to the EAEC Treaty pursuant to Article 106a thereof, in which Mr Lebedef seeks annulment of his appraisal report for the period from 1 July 2001 to 31 December 2002 and, as a subsidiary plea, annulment of the merit points awarded to him during the 2003 promotion procedure.

Held:      The action is dismissed as being manifestly inadmissible. Mr Lebedef is to bear his own costs and is ordered to pay those incurred by the European Commission.

Summary

Actions brought by officials — Interest in bringing proceedings — Assessment as at the date on which the action is brought — Action for annulment of a career development report brought by an official who has retired before bringing the action — Inadmissibility

(Staff Regulations, Arts 90 and 91)

In order to bring a valid action under Articles 90 and 91 of the Staff Regulations, an applicant must have a personal, vested and present interest in the annulment of the contested measure at the time when the action is brought and it must continue until the final decision, failing which there will be no need to adjudicate.

As regards a legal interest in bringing an action against an appraisal report, while it is true that the report plays an important part in the progress of the career of the official or other staff member concerned, in principle it affects the interest of the person assessed only until the termination of his service, so that, after his service has terminated, the official or other staff member is, in principle, no longer entitled to bring an action, save for the purposes of establishing the existence of a particular fact justifying a current, personal interest in obtaining the annulment of the report in question.

(see paras 17, 19)

See:

judgment in Marenco and Others v Commission, 81/74 to 88/74, EU:C:1975:139, para.6

judgment in Turner v Commission, T‑49/91, EU:T:1992:72, para. 24; orders in N v Commission, T‑97/94, EU:T:1998:270, para. 26, expressly confirmed on appeal by the order in N v Commission, C‑21/99 P, EU:C:1999:508, para. 24; Ross v Commission, T‑147/04, EU:T:2005:255, paras 24, 25 and 27; and Attey and Others v Council, T‑118/11, T‑123/11 and T‑124/11, EU:T:2012:270, para. 28

judgment in Solberg v EMCDDA, F‑148/12, EU:F:2013:154, paras 16 and 18