Judgment — ECLI:EU:F:2014:247
Date: 2014-11-18
Language of the case: French
Court formation: First Chamber
Based on: Merger Treaty (1965)
Subject matter: Staff regulations and employment conditions - EC
Procedure: Action for damages - successful;Staff cases;Action for damages - inadmissible

Summary 1. Actions brought by officials — Time-limits — Claim for compensation addressed to an institution — Duty to act within a reasonable time — Commencement and duration of period — Claim for supplementary compensation for occupational disease (Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 46; Staff Regulations, Art. 90) 2. Officials — Non-contractual liability of the institutions — Conditions — Unlawfulness — Damage — Causal link — Cumulative conditions — Claim for supplementary compensation for occupational disease — Burden of proof 3. Actions brought by officials — Action for annulment not brought within the time-limit — Action for damages aiming to achieve the same result — Inadmissibility (Staff Regulations, Arts 90 and 91) 4. Officials — Administration’s duty to have regard for the interests of officials — Scope — Enhanced obligation where the health of the official is affected (Staff Regulations, Art. 24) 1. In the absence of a time-limit laid down in the regulations applicable for bringing a claim for compensation arising from the employment relationship between an official and the institution by which he is employed, that claim must be brought within a reasonable time, which is determined in the light of the circumstances of the case. Since the legislation applicable is silent on the matter, the five-year limitation period laid down in Article 46 of the Statute of the Court of Justice is a relevant point of comparison for assessing the admissibility of an official’s claim for compensation without, however, constituting a strict and inviolable limit. Moreover, an official who is the victim of occupational disease is only entitled to claim supplementary compensation when the scheme laid down in Article 73 of the Staff Regulations does not allow appropriate compensation to be paid. As a consequence and in principle, such a claim is not admissible until the procedure commenced under Article 73 of the Staff Regulations has been concluded. (see paras 81, 82) See: judgment in Eagle and Others v Commission, T‑144/02, EU:T:2004:290, paras 66 and 71; and Allen and Others v Commission, T‑433/10 P, EU:T:2011:744, para. 45 judgment in A v Commission, F‑142/12, EU:F:2013:193, para. 95 and the case-law cited therein 2. In an application for damages brought by an official, the Union can be held non-contractually liable only if a number of conditions are satisfied as regards the illegality of the allegedly wrongful act of the institutions, the actual harm suffered and the existence of a causal link between the act and the damage alleged to have been suffered. As those three conditions are cumulative, the absence of any one of them is sufficient for an action for damages to be dismissed. In the case of an official who is the victim of occupational disease and who is only entitled to claim supplementary compensation on the basis of the Union’s non-contractual liability when the scheme laid down in Article 73 of the Staff Regulations does not allow appropriate compensation to be paid, it is for the official concerned to show that the three conditions for the Union to incur non-contractual liability are satisfied and that the damages granted under Article 73 of the Staff Regulations do not compensate in full for the harm he has suffered as a result of the administration’s unlawful conduct. (see paras 88-90) See: judgments in N v Parliament, F‑26/09, EU:F:2010:17, para. 68 and the case-law cited therein; and order in A v Commission, F‑50/13, EU:F:2014:78, para. 32 and the case-law cited therein 3. An official may not, through a claim for damages, seek to obtain the same result as he would have obtained had he been successful in an action for annulment which he failed to commence in due time. Consequently, an official’s claims for damages are inadmissible in so far as they seek compensation for the harm allegedly suffered as a result of acts, conduct and infringements which are the same as those relied on in support of requests for assistance and for compensation for the harm suffered which were rejected by a decision against which the official did not lodge an appeal. (see paras 96, 102, 103) See: judgment in Bossi v Commission, 346/87, EU:C:1989:59, paras 32, 34 and 35 judgment in Lopes v Court of Justice, T‑547/93, EU:T:1996:27, paras 174 and 175 order in Andersen v Court of Auditors, F‑1/12, EU:F:2013:46, paras 29, 34 and 35 4. The duty to have regard for the interests of officials implies in particular that when the administration takes a decision concerning the situation of an official, it should take into consideration all the factors which may affect its decision, and, when doing so, it must take into account not only the interests of the service but also those of the official concerned. Moreover, the obligations arising for the administration from the duty to have regard for the interests of officials are substantially enhanced where the situation of an official whose physical or mental health is shown to be affected is involved. In such circumstances, the administration must consider that official’s requests with a particularly open mind. (see para. 106) See: judgment in BN v Parliament, F‑24/12, EU:F:2014:165, paras 33 and 34 and the case-law cited therein