ORDER OF THE EUROPEAN UNION CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL
(First Chamber)
13 February 2014
Case F‑75/13
Norbert Probst
v
European Commission
(Civil service — Official — Expatriation allowance — Article 4 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations — Request for reconsideration — Substantial new facts — Action manifestly inadmissible)
Application: under Article 270 TFEU, applicable to the EAEC Treaty pursuant to Article 106a thereof, whereby Mr Probst seeks annulment of the decision of 4 October 2012 by which the European Commission rejected his request for a reconsideration of the decision refusing to grant him the expatriation allowance.
Held: The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible. Mr Probst is to bear his own costs and is ordered to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.
Summary
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)
A decision which has not been challenged by the person to whom it is addressed within the prescribed period becomes definitive as against that person. However, the existence of substantial new facts may justify the submission of a request for reconsideration of an earlier decision which has become definitive.
An action brought against a decision refusing to reconsider a decision which has become definitive will be declared admissible if it appears that the request for reconsideration was actually based on substantial new facts.
An annulling judgment of a Union Court is capable of constituting a new fact only in respect of, first, the parties to the proceedings and, second, other persons directly concerned by the annulled measure.
(see paras 16, 17, 23)
See:
19 June 2007, T‑473/04 Asturias Cuerno v Commission,
12 September 2011, F‑98/10 Cervelli v Commission, confirmed on appeal by the order of the General Court of the European Union of 11 October 2012, T‑622/11 P Cervelli v Commission, paras 19, 20 and 23 and the case-law cited therein