3.In his observations on the Council's objection, the applicant points out that the application directed against that institution is not an application for annulment but only a claim for damages. There may be doubt whether the applicant is entitled to proceed against the Council under Anieles 90 and 91 of the Staff Regulations which as a lex specialis cannot prevent the application of Article 151 and the second paragraph of Article 188 of the EAEC Treaty. The applicant is therefore entitled to base his claims for damages on the latter and in so doing he is not obliged to fulfil the conditions laid down by Article 91.If, however, it is assumed that the conditions of Article 91 (2) must be fulfilled in every case, then the applicant must be considered as having fulfilled them by submitting to the appointing authority a complaint against the regulations adopted by the Council. That is the most that can be required of an official who, under the complaints procedure, is acting without legal representation. He should be able to assume that he is acting in accordance with the requirements of the law in relying on the terms of the Staff Regulations (Case 50/74 Asmussen [1975] ECR 1003). To preclude actions against the Council to establish liability for a wrongful act or omission on its part would amount in many cases to excluding altogether any judicial remedy for officials, aimed at obtaining compensation for the damage they have suffered.The applicant's claim that the regulations are inapplicable is purely an incidental one. Therefore the Council's observations on the request for a declaration that they are inapplicable are devoid of purpose.
Source: EUR-Lex, © European Union, 1998-2026. Reuse authorised under Decision 2011/833/EU.