ORDER OF THE GENERAL COURT (Appeal Chamber)

14 July 2014

Case T‑356/13 P

Giorgio Lebedef

v

European Commission

(Appeal — Civil service — Officials — Disciplinary proceedings — Disciplinary measure — Downgrading — Appeal in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded)

Appeal:      against the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 24 April 2013 in Lebedef v Commission (F‑56/11, ECR-SC, EU:F:2013:49), seeking to have that judgment set aside.

Held:      The appeal is dismissed. Mr Giorgio Lebedef is to bear his own costs and is ordered to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission in the appeal proceedings.

Summary

Actions brought by officials — Plea of illegality — Measures the illegality of which may be pleaded — Disciplinary decision that has become final, adopted before the contested disciplinary decision — Not included

(Arts 263 TFEU and 277 TFEU; Staff Regulations, Arts 90 and 91)

In an action against a decision imposing a disciplinary measure on an official, the substance of a plea of illegality against a disciplinary decision taken earlier may not be considered by the Civil Service Tribunal where the latter decision does not form the legal basis of the decision which is being contested and where the official is entitled to bring an action against that first disciplinary decision in accordance with and within the time-limits laid down in Articles 90 and 91 of the Staff Regulations.

Article 277 TFEU gives expression to a general principle conferring upon any party to proceedings the right to challenge indirectly, for the purpose of obtaining the annulment of a measure against which it may bring an action, the validity of a previous act of the institutions which forms the legal basis of the decision which is being contested, if that party was not entitled under Article 263 TFEU to bring a direct action challenging that act by which it was thus affected without having been in a position to seek its annulment.

In that regard, the time-limits for lodging complaints and bringing proceedings are a matter of public policy and are not subject to the discretion of the parties or the Court, since they were established in order to ensure that legal positions are clear and certain. Allowing an official to challenge the first disciplinary decision indirectly, in an action against the second disciplinary decision, would be impossible to reconcile with the principles governing the legal remedies established by the Staff Regulations and would jeopardise the stability of that system and the principle of legal certainty upon which it is based.

(see paras 23, 24, 31, 32)

See:

judgments of 6 March 1979 in Simmenthal v Commission, 92/78, ECR, EU:C:1979:53, para. 39; and of 19 January 1984 in Andersen and Others v Parliament, 262/80, ECR, EU:C:1984:18, para. 6

order of 21 June 2010 in Meister v OHIM, T‑284/09 P, ECR-SC, EU:T:2010:246, para. 25 and the case-law cited therein