Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2018:842
Date: 2018-11-27
Language of the case: French
Court formation: First Chamber
Based on: Merger Treaty (1965)
Subject matter: Staff regulations and employment conditions - EC
Procedure: Staff cases - successful;Action for damages - inadmissible

summary of the pleas in law on which the application is based. That statement must be sufficiently clear and precise to enable the defendant to prepare its defence and the Court to give judgment on the action without recourse to further information. 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, at least in summary form, coherently and intelligibly in the application itself. More particularly, an application seeking compensation for damage allegedly caused by an EU institution must set out the evidence from which the conduct which the applicant alleges against the institution can be identified, the reasons for which the applicant considers that there is a causal link between the conduct and the damage it claims to have suffered and the nature and extent of that damage (see order of 16 January 2004, Arizona Chemical and Others v Commission, T‑369/03 R, EU:T:2004:9, paragraph 120 and the case-law cited). 101 However, it should be found that, as regards the identification of the alleged damage and the causal link between the allegedly unlawful conduct and that damage, the application does not satisfy the requirements laid down by Article 76(d) of the Rules of Procedure. 102 The applicant has not submitted any evidence to establish the existence of damage, to measure its extent or to demonstrate the existence of a causal link. 103 The claim for compensation must therefore be rejected as inadmissible. Costs 104 Under Article 134(1) 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. 105 In the present case, since the EEAS has been unsuccessful, it must be ordered to pay the costs, in accordance with the form of order sought by the applicant. On those grounds, THE GENERAL COURT (First Chamber) hereby: 1. Annuls the decision of the European External Action Service (EEAS) of 30 June 2016 rejecting the request submitted by Ms Chantal Hebberecht to extend her posting as Head of the European Union delegation to Ethiopia by one year; 2. Dismisses the action as to the remainder; 3. Orders the EEAS to pay the costs. Pelikánová Nihoul Svenningsen Delivered in open court in Luxembourg on 27 November 2018. [Signatures] * Language of the case: French.