Orders nº T-154/19 of Tribunal General de la Unión Europea, December 20, 2019

Resolution DateDecember 20, 2019
Issuing OrganizationTribunal General de la Unión Europea
Decision NumberT-154/19

(Action for annulment - Civil service - Officials - Mission expenses -Act not open to challenge - Act not adversely affecting an official - Irregular nature of the pre-litigation procedure - Premature action - Inadmissibility)

In Case T-154/19,

ZU, represented by C. Bernard-Glanz, lawyer,

applicant,

v

European External Action Service (EEAS), represented by S. Marquardt and R. Spac, acting as Agents,

defendant,

ACTION based on Article 270 TFEU seeking annulment of the part of the decision of 30 November 2018 by which the EEAS Appointing Authority rejected the applicant’s complaint of 27 July 2018, inasmuch as it implicitly refused the request concerning mission expenses submitted by the applicant on 26 February 2018,

THE GENERAL COURT (Seventh Chamber),

composed of R. da Silva Passos, President, I. Reine and L. Truchot (Rapporteur), Judges,

Registrar: E. Coulon,

makes the following

Order

Background to the dispute

1 The applicant, ZU, is an official of the European Commission who, at the time of the facts giving rise to the present dispute, was assigned to the European External Action Service (EEAS), within the Delegation of the European Union to Russia (‘the delegation’), with headquarters in Moscow (Russia).

2 In the course of his duties within the delegation, the applicant completed two missions during February 2018, the first in Sochi (Russia) and the second in Yerevan (Armenia) (‘the missions at issue’). As the end of the first mission and the beginning of the second were separated by non-working days, the delegation granted the applicant’s request for a derogation from the rule that all missions must begin and end at the place of employment of the person concerned, in this case Moscow.

3 On 26 February 2018, the applicant submitted a request via the delegation’s IT system for reimbursement of the expenses incurred in the context of the missions at issue (‘the request of 26 February 2018’), and enclosed statements of those expenses for that purpose.

4 As the delegation did not immediately accede to the request of 26 February 2018, a number of exchanges took place between the applicant and the administration. In particular, on 29 May 2018, the Head of Delegation sent the applicant a note (‘the note of 29 May 2018’), in which, inter alia, he pointed to irregularities in the travel undertaken in the context of the missions at issue, stressed the need for the applicant to provide the boarding passes pertaining to his travel during the period covered by the missions at issue, up to the date of his return to Moscow, and advised him that the delegation would examine any future mission requests from him with utmost caution.

5 On 27 July 2018, the applicant, who was yet to receive reimbursement of the expenses incurred in the context of the missions at issue, submitted a note to the delegation (‘the note of 27 July 2018’) containing the following:

- a request on the basis of Article 90(1) of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union (‘the Staff Regulations’) that the Appointing Authority take a decision allowing the competent services to reimburse the costs incurred in connection with the missions at issue;

- a complaint on the basis of Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations ‘against [the] EU’s and its officials’ failure to comply with applicable provisions of [those] Staff Regulations [(Article 12a(3), Articles 56, 71, 86 …)], [of the] EU Charter of Fundamental Rights [(]Article 31(1) and (2) and Article 41(1[)], [and of the] principles of good administration and sound financial management’;

- a request on the basis of Article 24 and Article 90(1) of the Staff Regulations that the appointing authority take relevant action aimed at ‘ensuring that my fundamental and statutory rights are respected and the damage already caused is reversed’.

6 On 30 July 2018, the delegation registered the note of 27 July 2018.

7 By decision of 30 November 2018 (‘the contested decision’), in the first place, the Appointing Authority responded to the request made by the applicant under Article 90(1) of the Staff Regulations concerning the expenses incurred in the context of the missions at issue. The Appointing Authority stated that the applicant had failed to provide the delegation with the boarding passes, even though these were necessary in order to proceed with the requested reimbursement, and invited him to provide all of the required documents...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT