ORDER OF THE EUROPEAN UNION CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL

(Second Chamber)

4 June 2013

Case F‑89/12

Stefania Marrone

v

European Commission

(Civil service — Officials — Appointment — Principle of equivalence of careers — Classification in grade under new and less favourable rules — Request for reclassification — Delay — New facts — None — Manifest inadmissibility)

Application:      by Ms Marrone pursuant to Article 270 TFEU, applicable to the EAEC Treaty by virtue of Article 106a thereof, seeking annulment of the decision of 10 May 2012, by which the appointing authority rejected her complaint and, in so far as necessary, the decision of 21 November 2011, rejecting her request of 29 June 2011. The essence of that request was that the European Commission should reconstruct her career as from 1 May 2004.

Held:      The application is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible. Ms Marrone is to bear her own costs and is ordered to pay those incurred by the European Commission.

Summary

1.      Actions brought by officials — Prior administrative complaint — Time-limits — Claim barred by lapse of time — Reopening — Condition — New and material fact

(Staff Regulations, Arts 90 and 91)

2.      Actions brought by officials — Interest in bringing proceedings — Requirement for the claim to relate to matters personal to the official

(Staff Regulations, Art. 91)

1.      Only the existence of new and material facts may justify the submission of a claim seeking reconsideration of a decision which was not challenged within the time-limits.

(see para. 25)

See:

15 May 1985, 127/84 Esly v Commission, para. 10

2.      An official is not entitled to act in the interests of the law and can only bring a claim in respect of matters which relate to him personally.

(see para. 27)

See:

21 January 1987, 204/85 Stroghili v Court of Auditors, para. 9

23 January 2007, F‑43/05 Chassagne v Commission, para. 100 and the case-law cited