Language of document : ECLI:EU:F:2016:152


(First Chamber)

18 July 2016

Case F‑143/15

Constant Dietrich


European Parliament

(Civil service — Member of the contract staff — Early termination of the contract — Expiry date of the notice period — Suspension of the notice period — New expiry date of the notice period — Act not having an adverse effect — Complaint lodged out of time — Objection of inadmissibility — Manifest inadmissibility — Article 83 of the Rules of Procedure)

Application:      under Article 270 TFUE, applicable to the EAEC Treaty pursuant to Article 106a thereof, by which Mr Constant Dietrich seeks, principally, annulment of the decision of the authority empowered to conclude contracts of employment of the European Parliament (‘the AECE’) of 2 February 2015, terminating his contract as a member of the contract staff, annulment of the decision of the AECE of 25 February 2015 setting the new expiry date of his contract, and annulment of the decision rejecting his complaint.

Held:      The action is dismissed as being manifestly inadmissible. Mr Constant Dietrich shall bear his own costs and is ordered to pay the costs incurred by the European Parliament.


Actions brought by officials — Prior administrative complaint — Date on which complaint made — Receipt by the administration

(Staff Regulations, Art. 90(2))

In order for a complaint to be regarded as having been validly made under Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations, the authority in question must have been in a position to take cognisance of its contents within the prescribed time limit. Consequently, the date to be taken into consideration, for assessing whether a complaint was lodged within the prescribed time limit, is the date when it was received by the institution concerned.

(see para. 26)


Order of 29 June 2011 in Schuerewegen v Parliament, F‑125/10, EU:F:2011:98, paras 22 and 25