Judgment of the General Court Seventh Chamber, Extended Composition of 3 March 2021, Barata v Parliament, Case T-723/18

• Date: 03 March 2021
• Year: 2021

50

XV. CIVIL SERVICE

Judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber, Extended Composition) of 3 March

2021, Barata v Parliament, Case T-723/18

Link to the complete text of the judgment

Civil service – Officials – Promotion – Certification procedure – Exclusion of the applicant from the final list

of officials entitled to take part in the training programme – Article 45a of the Staff Regulations – Action for

annulment – Communication by registered letter – Article 26 of the Staff Regulations – Registered letter

not collected by the person to whom it was addressed – Starting point of the period prescribed for

instituting proceedings – Admissibility – Obligation to state reasons – Right to be heard – Principle of

sound administration – Proportionality – Rules on the use of languages

On 22 September 2017, the European Parliament published a call for applications (‘the notice of

competition’) for the 2017 certification exercise, in order to select officials in the AST function group

who were suitable for appointment to a post in the AD function group pursuant to Article 45a of the

Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union (‘the Staff Regulations’). The applicant, an official

of the European Parliament, submitted an application in the procedure in question.

The appointing authority of the Parliament (‘the appointing authority’) rejected that application as

inadmissible on the ground that it was not accompanied by a list of annexes, as required by the notice

of competition. The appointing authority confirmed its rejection by two decisions taken following

internal review procedures initiated by the applicant.

By decision of 23 July 2018, the appointing authority rejected the applicant’s complaints against the

decisions rejecting his requests, while confirming its previous decisions. The Parliament

communicated that decision by registered letter with acknowledgement of receipt, sent to the

applicant’s home address. On 25 July 2018, the Belgian postal service delivered that letter to the

applicant’s home address and, in the applicant’s absence, left a notice of attempted delivery. As that

letter was not collected by the applicant, the Belgian postal service sent it back to the Parliament on

9 August 2018. In addition, on 28 August 2018, the Parliament sent an email to the applicant to which

the decision of 23 July 2018 was annexed, which the applicant confirmed that he had become aware

of that day.

On 7 December 2018, the applicant, claiming that the period for bringing an action had started to run

from the date on which he became aware of the email, brought an action before the Court seeking

annulment of the decisions not to admit his application and annulment of the notice of competition.

The Court, while finding that the action had been brought within the period prescribed for that

purpose, nevertheless dismissed it as unfounded. In its judgment, the Court clarifies the case-law of

the European Union as regards the determination of the starting point of the periods for bringing

proceedings in disputes governed by the Staff Regulations where an individual decision is sent by

registered letter with acknowledgment of receipt, but is not collected by the addressee.

Moreover, the judgment supplements the case-law concerning the application of Regulation No 1/58

on the rules on the use of languages

105

where there is a certification procedure, namely an internal

competition reserved for certain officials.

105

Council Regulation N o 1 of 15 April 1958 determining the languages to be used by the European Economic Commun ity (OJ, English Sp ecial

Edition Series I 1952-1958, p. 59), as amended by Council Regulation (EU) No 517/2013 of 13 May 2013 (OJ 2013 L 158, p. 1).