Judgment of the General Court (Appeal Chamber) of 5 March 2008.#Philippe Combescot v European Commission.#Case T-414/06 P.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Appeal Chamber)

5 March 2008

Case T-414/06 P

Philippe Combescot

v

Commission of the European Communities

(Appeal – Civil service – Officials – Inadmissibility of the action before the Civil Service Tribunal – Time-limit for bringing an action)

Application: Appeal against the judgment of the European Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 19 October 2006 in Case F-114/05 Combescot v Commission [2006] ECR-SC I-A-1-115 and II‑A‑1‑435, seeking the setting aside of that judgment.

Held: The appeal is dismissed. Mr Philippe Combescot is ordered to bear his own costs and pay those incurred by the Commission.

Summary

Officials – Actions – Time-limits – Express rejection of complaint adopted within the period for replying but not notified

(Staff Regulations, Arts 90(2) and 91(3))

Under the system of remedies established by Articles 90 and 91 of the Staff Regulations, once the four-month period for replying referred to in Article 90(2) has expired, an express rejection adopted within that period but not notified amounts to an implied rejection opening a period of three months for the bringing of proceedings.

That conclusion is entirely consistent with the purpose of time-limits for complaints and actions, the aim being to ensure, within the Community institutions, the legal certainty which is essential to their proper functioning by preventing Community measures which produce legal effects from being called in question indefinitely. Those time‑limits are a matter of public policy and are not subject to the discretion of the parties or the Court.

Moreover, that conclusion in no way prejudices the official’s right to legal protection or his right to a fair hearing, which are adequately safeguarded and protected by his ability to bring an action against the act adversely affecting him within three months of the implied rejection of his complaint.

(see paras 39, 43-44)

See: 79/70 Müllers v ESC [1971] ECR 689, para. 18; 40/71 Richez-Parise v Commission [1972] ECR 73, para. 6; 227/83 Moussis v Commission [1984] ECR 3133, para. 12