ORDER OF THE EUROPEAN UNION CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL

(First Chamber)

24 May 2012

Case F‑91/11

Ciprian-Calin Alionescu

v

European Commission

(Civil service — Recruitment — Open competition — Decision to extend the deadline for registration — No complaint — Manifest inadmissibility)

Application:      brought under Article 270 TFEU, applicable to the EAEC Treaty pursuant to Article 106a thereof, in which Mr Alionescu seeks annulment of the decision by which the European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) decided to extend by six hours the deadline for registration for open competitions EPSO/AD/206/11 and EPSO/AD/207/11 and the adoption of measures consequent on that annulment.

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

Summary

Officials — Actions — Act adversely affecting an official — Decision by the European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) to extend the deadline for registration for a competition — No prior administrative complaint — Manifest inadmissibility

(Staff Regulations, Arts 90 and 91)

Except where an action is directed against a measure not of the appointing authority itself, such as a decision of a competition selection board or a staff report, failure to lodge a prior complaint within the required time-limit renders the action inadmissible.

An action against a decision to extend the deadline for registration for a competition taken by the European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) in its capacity as the organising authority for the competitions concerned and not by the selection board in those competitions must necessarily be the subject of a prior administrative complaint. Failing that, such an action is manifestly inadmissible.

(see paras 15-17)

See:

10 June 1987, 317/85 Pomar v Commission, paras 11 and 13

20 June 1990, T‑133/89 Burban v Parliament, para. 17; 16 July 1992, T‑1/91 Della Pietra v Commission, para. 23

9 December 2008, F‑106/05 T v Commission, para. 84