ORDER OF THE EUROPEAN UNION CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL

(Third Chamber)

10 December 2014

Case F‑127/14

Stephen Turkington

v

European Commission

(Civil service — Officials — Pensions — Transfer of pension rights acquired under a national pension scheme — Proposal concerning the crediting of pensionable years not challenged within the prescribed time period — No substantial new facts — Manifest inadmissibility)

Application:      under Article 270 TFEU, applicable to the EAEC Treaty pursuant to Article 106a thereof, in which Mr Turkington seeks annulment of the decision of 27 January 2014 by which the European Commission rejected his request to recalculate the number of pensionable years credited to the Union pension scheme resulting from the transfer of pension rights which he had acquired under the German pension scheme.

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

Summary

1.      Actions brought by officials — Prior administrative complaint — Time-limits — Mandatory

(Staff Regulations, Arts 90 and 91)

2.      Actions brought by officials — Prior administrative complaint — Time-limits — Claim barred by lapse of time — Reopening — Condition — Substantial new fact

(Staff Regulations, Arts 90 and 91)

1.      The time-limits for lodging a complaint and bringing an action are mandatory and are not at the discretion of the parties or the court. The possibility of submitting a request as provided for in Article 90(1) of the Staff Regulations therefore does not allow an official to set aside the time-limits laid down in Articles 90 and 91 of the Staff Regulations for the lodging of a complaint and the bringing of an action by indirectly calling in question, by means of a later request, a previous decision which had not been challenged within the time-limits.

(see para. 18)

See:

order in Michel v Commission, F‑44/13, EU:F:2014:40, para. 46 and the case-law cited therein

2.      The existence of substantial new facts may justify the submission of a request for reconsideration of a previous decision which has become definitive. An action brought against a decision refusing to reconsider a decision which has become definitive will therefore be declared admissible if it appears that the request for reconsideration was actually based on substantial new facts. On the other hand, if it appears that the request was not based on such facts, the action against the decision refusing to reconsider the earlier decision must be dismissed as inadmissible.

In this connection, the legal effects of a judgment of a Union Court annulling a measure relate, other than to the parties, only to persons directly concerned by the annulled measure itself and such a judgment can constitute a new fact only with respect to those persons.

(see paras 19, 22)

See:

order in Cervelli v Commission, T‑622/11 P, EU:T:2012:538, para. 18 and the case-law cited therein

order in Probst v Commission, F‑75/13, EU:F:2014:20, paras 17 and 23 and the case-law cited therein