C-346/90

Mr President, applicant's degree of invalidity at' 50%, Members of the Court, contrary to the findings of the Medical Committee. The Commission considered that the Medical Committee had exceeded 1. F., an official at the Commission, was its terms of reference in deciding that a removed from his post following a violent degree of invalidity of 18%, the result of altercation, on 6 October 1982, with the the events of 6 October 1982, should also Director-General for Personnel and Admin- be regarded as occupational in origin. istration. By a judgment given on 29 January 1985, 1 the Court annulled the relevant decision on the ground that it did not contain an adequate statement of reasons. On 6 May 1985, the Commission adopted a fresh decision removing the applicant from his post. F. brought another 2. F. considered that the Commission had action against that decision and the Court erred in fixing the degree of invalidity at dismissed his application. 2 50%, in the decision of 15 July 1988, and had failed, moreover, to take into account his application for an invalidity pension in On 22 March 1985, following the accordance with Article 78 of the Staff annulment of the first decision to remove Regulations. He brought an action before him from his post, F. applied for an the Court of First Instance claiming that the invalidity pension under Article 78 of the decision at issue should be annulled and that Staff Regulations of Officials ('the Staff he should be awarded compensation. Regulations'). By a letter of 11 June 1985, the administration informed him that, as a result of the fresh decision to remove him from his post, the 'procedure in his case had become devoid of purpose'. F. objected to that in a letter of 26 June 1985 and requested that the procedure under Article By judgment of 26 September 1990, 3 the 78 be continued. Court of First Instance partially allowed the application, annulling the Commission's decision of 15 July 1988 in so far as it fixed In the meantime the procedure provided for the applicant's degree of permanent by Article 73 of the Staff Regulations for invalidity at 50% instead of 68% as had granting invalidity benefit was initiated at been established by the Medical Committee. the applicant's request. When the procedure However, in the same judgment, the Court was concluded, on 15 July 1988, the found that the plea based on infringement Commission adopted a decision fixing the of Article 78 was inadmissible and dismissed the application for compensation as * Original language: Italian. unfounded. 1 — Case 228/83 F. v Commission [1985] ECR 275. 2 — Case 403/85 [1987] ECR 615. 3 — Case T-122/89 F. v Commission [1990] LCR II-517.

F.'s appeal It is essentially against that assertion that F.'s complaints, as set out in the appeal, are directed. He claims that the Court was wrong to consider that the decision of 3. F.'s appeal relates both to the part of the 11 June 1985 was a decision refusing his judgment in which the Court considered the request under Article 78; on the contrary, it plea based on infringement of Article 78 of was a letter in which the Commission the Staff Regulations (paragraphs 22 to 24) merely stated that the application had to be inadmissible and to the part where the 'become devoid of purpose', and that was as Court dismissed the application for compen- a result of the second decision to remove sation (paragraphs 30 to 36). him from his post. In the applicant's view, the Commission did not definitively communicate to him the explicit rejection of his request under Article 78 until the decision of 15 July 1988. As regards the alleged infringement of Article 78, the applicant had argued before the Court that the Commission's decision of 15 July 1988 was unlawful in so far as it had not taken into account the application 4. F. is therefore claiming, in effect, that he he had made in a letter of 22 March 1985 should be granted an extension of the for an invalidity pension under Article 78. mandatory time-limits laid down in Articles 90 and 91 of the Staff Regulations relating to the submission of complaints to the appointing authority and the instigation of proceedings before the Community courts. The Court noted that the Commission had only dealt with the applicant's request under Article 73, that is to say without recon- sidering the possibility of granting an invalidity pension pursuant to Article 78. The Court also stated that 'even assuming It should be noted, in that connection, that that the aforementioned decision could be the Court has consistently held that 'the interpreted as containing an implied refusal time-limits laid down in Articles 90 and 91 to grant a request made by the applicant of the Staff Regulations are mandatory and under Article 78, that refusal would are not subject to the discretion of the constitute, in the absence of any new factors parties or of the Court, since they were laid not taken into account in the decision of down with a view to ensuring clarity and 11 June 1985, cited above, an act legal certainty'. 4 The Court has stated that confirming the decision and could not, therefore, adversely affect the applicant. 4 — Case 191/84 Barcella v Commission [1986] ECR 1541, paragraph 12.

an extension of the time-limits may only be sation for damage suffered. Before the considered if there are important new facts Court of First Instance, F. had relied, as the capable of justifying a review. 5 basis of his claim for damages, on both the Commission's conduct during the procedure which led to the decision of 15 July 1988 being adopted, and the consequences flowing from that decision. However, as the Court of First Instance correctly pointed out, the commencement before the Court of Justice of an action challenging the second decision to remove him from his post cannot be regarded as a new fact justifying the extension of the strict In his appeal, F. complains that the Court of time-limits laid down in Articles 90 and 91 First Instance refused to take into of the Staff Regulations. It follows that the consideration the actual damage which he applicant could only protect his rights, in suffered as the result of the contested anticipation of the outcome of his action, by decision, and contests the Court of First contesting the decision of 11 June 1985 Instance's conclusion that 'the annulment of within the mandatory time-limits. the irregular decision and the consequent definition, by the Commission, of the applicant's degree of permanent invalidity resulting from his occupation, in implemen- tation of the present judgment, enables the Finally, I consider it unimportant to applicant's rights to be restored to him' establish whether the letter of 26 June 1985 (paragraph 34). was merely a letter clarifying the position, as the applicant and the Commission itself have maintained, or, on the contrary, as a complaint, as was held by the Court of First Instance. That is because in any event F."s It is sufficient to note here that the Court of position remains unchanged: whichever way First Instance reached that conclusion on one looks at it, the decision of 11 June has the basis of the comment that the applicant become definitive, since it was not chal- 'has not specified in detail the damage lenged within the time-limits laid down in allegedly suffered in the form, in particular, Article 91(2) of the Staff Regulations. of an aggravation of his state of health and of his occupational circumstances. He has not proved, or offered to prove, either that such aggravation occurred after the The plea in question is therefore without adoption of the contested decision, or that foundation since there has been no error of there is a causal link between the damage law, in the present case, in the Court of allegedly suffered and the adoption of the First Instance's interpretation. decision in question' (paragraph 34).

Conclusions

In the light of the foregoing, I propose that the C o u r t dismiss both F."s appeal and the Commission's cross-appeal.

W i t h regard to the costs, I propose that each party, including the intervener, should bear its o w n costs.

6 — See C-283/90 P Vidrányi v Commission [1991] ECR 4339, paragraph 16.

I - 2706