Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2003:105
Date: 2003-04-09
Based on: Merger Treaty (1965)
Subject matter: Staff regulations and employment conditions - EC
Concepts: Act adversely affecting the official;Admissibility and examination of applications, forms of order sought and pleas in law
Procedure: Staff cases - inadmissible;Action for damages - unfounded

summary of the pleas in law on which the application is based. That summary must be sufficiently clear and precise to enable the Court to exercise its power of judicial review, without other supporting documents, if necessary. In order to guarantee legal certainty and sound administration of justice it is necessary, in order for an action to be admissible, that the basic legal and factual particulars relied on be indicated coherently and intelligibly in the application itself (Case T-85/92 De Hoe v Commission [1993] ECR-SC II-523, paragraph 20; and Case T-128/96 Lebedef v Commission [1996] ECR-SC II-1679, paragraph 24). 41. In the present case, the applicant claims that the Court should order the Commission to pay the applicant compensation for breach of contract and/or for breach of Article 47 of the Conditions of Employment (paragraph 88(a) and (c) of the application). The application specifies as follows: - that the Commission should be ordered to pay full compensation (paragraph 6(c)), - that the letter of termination of 3 October 2000 did not provide for the requisite three months' notice and was thus in breach of Article 5(b) of the contract and Article 47 of the Conditions of Employment, and that no, or no full, compensation has been paid to the applicant, in further breach of Article 47 (paragraph 76); - that the applicant has not been compensated either for the Commission's failure to provide the three months' notice to which he was entitled, or in the amount referred to in Article 47 (paragraph 84); - that the applicant is entitled to compensation corresponding to three months' full salary and benefits for the period 15 October 2000 to 14 January 2001 (the period referred to in Article 5 of the contract of employment and Article 47 of the Conditions of Employment), plus one third of his basic salary for the period from 16 October 2000 to 31 October 2004 or from 15 January 2001 to 31 October 2004 (paragraphs 81 and 85). 42. A reading of the passages referred to above shows that the only claim which meets the requirements of clarity and precision referred to in paragraph 40 above is the one relating to payment of the amounts to which the applicant claims to be entitled for the three-month notice period and following termination of his contract of employment by the Commission had that termination been effected in accordance with Article 5 of the contract of employment and Article 47(1) of the Conditions of Employment. Any additional claim seeking 'full compensation' for other damage allegedly caused by the 'Commission's failure' lacks the necessary clarity and must be declared inadmissible. 43. It follows that the only claim of a financial character which is admissible is the one for payment of the amounts referred to in Article 5(b) of the contract of employment and Article 47(1)(b) and last subparagraph of the Conditions of Employment. 44. Having regard to the findings of fact above to the effect that the applicant himself terminated his contract without notice, the conditions governing the application of the provisions relied on are clearly not met in the present case. The claims of a financial character must therefore be dismissed, pursuant to Article 111 of the Rules of Procedure, as manifestly lacking any foundation in law. 45. It follows from all the foregoing that the application must be dismissed in its entirety, without its being necessary to rule on the applicant's requests for measures of inquiry and organisation of procedure. Costs 46. Under Article 87(2) of the Rules of Procedure, the unsuccessful party is to be ordered to pay the costs, if they have been applied for in the successful party's pleadings. However, under Article 88 of those same Rules of Procedure, in proceedings between the Communities and their servants, the institutions are to bear their own costs. Since the applicant has been unsuccessful, the parties shall bear their own costs. On those grounds, THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Second Chamber), hereby orders: 1. The application is dismissed. 2. The parties shall bear their own costs. Forwood Pirrung Meij Delivered in open court in Luxembourg on 9 April 2003. H. Jung N.J. Forwood Registrar President 1: Language of the case: English.