ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Fourth Chamber)

8 July 1998

Case T-200/95

X

v

Commission of the European Communities

‛Officials — Time-limits for submitting a complaint — Clearly inadmissible’

Full text in Greek   II-1003

Application for:

annulment of a decision forbidding the applicant access to Commission premises following the decision to remove him from his post, and compensation for the damage sustained as a result.

Decision:

Application dismissed.

Abstract of the Order

The applicant entered the service of the Commission on 31 January 1983 as an official in grade A 4 in Directorate-General VII (Transport). In June 1991 he was appointed Deputy Head of Unit 3 (Air safety, air traffic control and industrial policy, social aspects) of Directorate C (Air transport) of DG VII (Unit VII.C.3), with responsibility for matters concerning air safety.

On 8 October 1992 the Commission commenced disciplinary proceedings against him.

By decision of 4 October 1993 the appointing authority took a decision to remove the applicant from his post.

By note of 5 October 1993, Mr Richardson, Director of Directorate B (Rights and Obligations) of Directorate-General IX (Personnel and Administration) informed the applicant that, as from that date, he was forbidden access to Commission premises with the exception of certain buildings housing the departments responsible for social and administrative matters, namely, remuneration, pensions, sickness insurance and social services.

On 31 January 1995 the applicant, in his capacity as representative of a Greek research department, and accompanied by a Commission official, turned up at the Commission building at 29 Avenue de Beaulieu in Brussels to submit a research proposal. However, he was denied access.

This scene was repeated at the Commission building at 80 Rue d'Arlon in Brussels, where the applicant was informed that the decision in question had been taken by the Commission administration.

In the wake of those incidents, the applicant informed the Director-General of Personnel by letter of 30 March 1995 that he regarded the ban on entering Commission premises as detrimental to his private, professional and academic life. Consequently, he asked the Director-General to lift the ban, since it could not in his view be based on any lawful provision, especially since proceedings contesting the decision to remove him from his post were pending before the Court of First Instance.

The Director-General never replied to that letter.

Admissibility

The first point to note is that, contrary to the Commission's view, Mr Richardson's note is sufficient in itself to produce legal effects. The decision removing the applicant from his post merely states that he was excused from performing his duties in his former department. It does not contain any information concerning the applicant's access to Commission premises in general. Furthermore, it is apparent from explanations provided by the Commission during the written procedure that the ban in question was regarded as a measure necessary in the circumstances of this case; it was not an automatic consequence of the applicant's removal from his post (paragraph 34).

Since Mr Richardson's note produces legal effects, it adversely affects the applicant (paragraph 35).

See: 32/68 Grasselli v Commission 11969) ECR 505, para. 4; 204/85 Streghili v Court of Auditors [1987] ECR 389, para. 6

The note in question was communicated to the applicant on 5 October 1993 and, pursuant to Article 90 of the Staff Regulations, should have been contested by 5 January 1994 at the latest. However, it was not until 30 March 1995 that the applicant asked the Director-General for Personnel to withdraw the decision forbidding him access to Commission premises. Accordingly, the applicant's complaint seeking withdrawal of that decision was clearly out of time (paragraphs 36 and 37).

Operative part:

The application is dismissed as clearly inadmissible.