Access to European Union law
<a href="https://eur-lex.europa.eu/content/help/eurlex-content/experimental-features.html" target="_blank">More about the experimental features corner</a>
Choose the experimental features you want to try
EUR-Lex
Access to European Union law

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

You are here
Use quotation marks to search for an "exact phrase". Append an asterisk (*) to a search term to find variations of it (transp*, 32019R*). Use a question mark (?) instead of a single character in your search term to find variations of it (ca?e finds case, cane, care).
Search tips
Need more search options? Use the Advanced search

Document 62019TO0043

Order of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 29 January 2020.
WV v European External Action Service.
Action for compensation — Civil service — Civil servants — Out of time — Inadmissibility.
Case T-43/19.

ECLI identifier: ECLI:EU:T:2020:25

 Order of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 29 January 2020 –
WV v EEAS

(Case T‑43/19)

(Action for compensation — Civil service — Civil servants — Out of time — Inadmissibility)

1. 

Actions brought by officials — Action against a decision rejecting a complaint — Admissibility — Obligation to rule on pleas directed against the decision rejecting the complaint — Pleas devoid of independent content or purely confirmatory decision — None

(Staff Regulations of Officials, Arts 90 and 91)

(see paras 53, 54)

2. 

Actions brought by officials — Prior administrative complaint — Time limits — Claim barred by lapse of time — Reopening through a request under Article 90(1) of the Staff Regulations — Not permissible

(Staff Regulations of Officials, Arts 90 and 91)

(see para. 59)

3. 

Actions brought by officials — Application for damages linked to an application for annulment — Dismissal of claim for annulment leading to dismissal of the claim for compensation

(Staff Regulations of Officials, Art. 91)

(see para. 72)

Re:

Application under Article 270 TFEU seeking, first, annulment, of the EEAS’s decision of 28 March 2018 rejecting the applicant’s application for compensation and, in so far as necessary, the EEAS’s decision of 26 October 2018 rejecting the applicant’s complaint of 26 June 2018; and second, compensation in respect of the harm that the applicant allegedly suffered as a result of the EEAS’s conduct towards her.

Operative part

1. 

The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

2. 

WV is ordered to pay the costs.
Top