EUR-Lex Access to European Union law

Back to EUR-Lex homepage

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Document 62008TO0340

Order of the Court of First Instance (Appeal Chamber) of 22 June 2009.
Marianne Timmer v Court of Auditors of the European Communities.
Appeal - Public service - Officials.
Case T-340/08 P.

European Court Reports – Staff Cases 2009 I-B-1-00043; II-B-1-00251

ECLI identifier: ECLI:EU:T:2009:214

ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Appeal Chamber)

22 June 2009

Case T-340/08 P

Marianne Timmer

v

Court of Auditors of the European Communities

(Appeal – Civil service – Officials – Staff reporting – New and substantial facts – Appeal manifestly inadmissible in part and manifestly unfounded in part)

Appeal: against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (Second Chamber) of 5 June 2008 in Case F-123/06 Timmer v Court of Auditors [2008] ECR-SC I-A-1-0000 and II-A-1-0000, and seeking annulment of that order.

Held: The appeal is dismissed. Ms Marianne Timmer is ordered to bear her own costs and to pay those of the Court of Auditors of the European Communities in the present proceedings.

Summary

1.      Appeals – Statement of pleas in law and legal arguments in the application – Plea not sufficiently precise – Inadmissibility

(Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 138(1)(c))

2.      Officials – Actions – Prior administrative complaint – Time-limits – Claim barred by lapse of time – Reopening – Condition – Substantial new fact

(Staff Regulations, Arts 90 and 91)

1.      An appeal before the Court of First Instance against a decision of the Civil Service Tribunal which does not contain any specific argument in support of an application for annulment, but merely refers to the ‘results of a documentary review of new facts’ to support a claim for damages does not meet the requirements of Article 138(1)(c) of the Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal and must be dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.

(see paras 24-25)

2.      The unlawful appointment of an official does not affect the lawfulness of the measures which he is required to carry out in the performance of his duties. In particular, the unlawful appointment of a hierarchical superior cannot vitiate the latter’s decisions concerning an official’s staff report.

The unlawfulness of an appointment cannot therefore be regarded as a substantial fact justifying an application for the reconsideration of staff reports which have not been challenged in good time.

(see paras 39, 41-42)

Top