ORDER OF THE EUROPEAN UNION CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL

(Third Chamber)

30 April 2014

Case F‑88/13

Desislava Kolarova

v

Research Executive Agency (REA)

(Civil service — Staff of the Research Executive Agency — Preliminary issues — Objection of inadmissibility — Powers conferred on the authority authorised to conclude contracts of employment — Delegation to the Office for the Administration and Payment of Individual Entitlements (PMO) — Action against the decisions of the PMO — Action against the delegating institution — Manifest inadmissibility)

Application:      under Article 270 TFEU by Ms Kolarova, seeking annulment of the decision of the Head of the ‘Salaries and Administration of Individual Rights’ Unit of the Office for the Administration and Payment of Individual Entitlements (‘PMO 1’) rejecting her application for an allowance for her mother as a person treated as a dependent child under Article 2(4) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union (‘the Staff Regulations’), together with compensation for the non-material harm resulting from certain allegations made against her by PMO 1 in dealing with her application.

Held:      The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible. Ms Kolarova is to bear her own costs and is ordered to pay those incurred by the Research Executive Agency.

Summary

Actions brought by officials — Status of defendant — Research Executive Agency — Delegation of powers conferred on the authority authorised to conclude contracts of employment — Action against the delegating authority — Inadmissibility

(Staff Regulations, Art. 91a)

With regard to entitlements for the allocation of which the Research Executive Agency has delegated the exercise of the powers conferred on the authority authorised to conclude contracts of employment to the Office for the Administration and Payment of Individual Entitlements (PMO), the regulations applicable and, in particular, Article 91a of the Staff Regulations designate the Commission as the defendant in any action against a decision of that Office.

An action in which a staff member of the Research Executive Agency challenges a decision of the PMO is inadmissible where it is directed against the Agency.

(see paras 17, 18)

See:

12 December 2013, F‑22/12 Hall v Commission and CEPOL, para. 25