ORDER OF THE EUROPEAN UNION CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL
(First Chamber)

30 September 2015

Case F‑54/15

Carlos Nunes

v

European Court of Auditors

(Civil service — Contract staff — Dispute concerning the terms of employment — Complaint out of time — Failure to comply with the pre-litigation procedure — Manifest inadmissibility)

Application:      under Article 270 TFEU, applicable to the EAEC Treaty pursuant to Article 106a thereof, in which Mr Nunes seeks, first, annulment of the decision of 19 January 2015 by which the European Court of Auditors rejected his complaint of 5 December 2014 seeking the annulment of a decision of 29 April 2009 which he claimed unilaterally amended his remuneration and his legal status as a member of the temporary staff, and, second, an order that the Court of Auditors retrospectively adjust his remuneration as a member of the temporary staff from April 2009.

Held:      The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible. Mr Nunes is to bear his own costs.

Summary

Actions brought by officials — Prior administrative complaint — Time-limits — Matter of public policy — Review by the Court of its own motion

(Staff Regulations, Arts 90 and 91)

The time-limit of three months for lodging a complaint against an act adversely affecting an official, laid down by Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations, is a matter of public policy and not subject to the discretion of the parties or the Court, since it was established in order to ensure that legal positions are clear and certain and that there is legal certainty. It is therefore for the Courts of the European Union to verify, of their own motion, whether that time-limit has been complied with.

A complaint directed against a decision to employ a person as a member of the contract staff which is lodged more than five years after that decision is therefore manifestly out of time. Even if the decision rejecting that complaint were to be regarded as a decision rejecting not a complaint but a request submitted under Article 90(1) of the Staff Regulations, the person concerned would then have, under the provisions of Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations, a period of three months in which to lodge a complaint against that decision rejecting a request under Article 90(1).

(see paras 13, 15, 16)

See:

Order of 7 September 2005 in Krahl v Commission, T‑358/03, EU:T:2005:301, para. 35 and the case-law cited therein