Order — ECLI:EU:T:2012:602
Date: 2012-11-15
Language of the case: Italian
Court formation: Appeals Chamber
Based on: Merger Treaty (1965)
Subject matter: Staff regulations and employment conditions - EC
Procedure: Appeal - unfounded;Appeal - inadmissible;Staff cases;Action for damages

Summary 1. Officials — Non-contractual liability of the institutions — Conditions — Unlawfulness — Damage — Causal link — Decision vitiated by a breach of the right to confidentiality — Not a sufficient condition for the Union to incur non-contractual liability — Actual fact of damage and causal link — Burden of proof (Art. 340, second para., TFEU) 2. Appeals — Pleas in law — Need for a precise criticism of part of the Civil Service Tribunal’s reasoning (Art. 257 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Annex I, Art. 11; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 138(1), first para.,(c)) 3. Appeals — Pleas in law — Review by the General Court of the Civil Service Tribunal’s refusal to order measures of inquiry — Scope (Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal, Art. 58(1)) 4. Appeals — Pleas in law — Plea against a ground of the judgment not necessary to support the operative part — Invalid plea in law 5. Appeals — Pleas in law — Plea against the Civil Service Tribunal’s decision as to costs — Inadmissible if all other pleas are rejected (Statute of the Court of Justice, Annex I, Art. 11(2)) 1. The Union incurs non-contractual liability only if a series of cumulative conditions are met as regards the unlawfulness of the acts alleged against the defendant institution, the actual fact of the alleged damage and the existence of a causal link between the contested acts and the damage complained of. The fact that a decision of an institution is vitiated by an illegality such as a breach of the right to confidentiality is not a sufficient condition for the Union to incur non-contractual liability, since for such liability to be incurred the appellant must have been able to prove the actual fact of the damage he claims and the causal link between that damage and the illegality complained of. (see paras 48-49, 53) See: T‑46/08 P Marcuccio v Commission [2009] ECR-SC I‑B‑1-77 and II‑B‑1-479, para. 66 and the case-law cited therein; judgment of 6 July 2010 in T‑401/09 Marcuccio v Commission, not published in the ECR, para. 26; T‑143/09 P Commission v Petrilli [2010] ECR-SC, para. 45 and the case-law cited therein 2. See the text of the decision. (see paras 56-57) See: C‑352/98 P Bergaderm and Goupil v Commission [2000] ECR I‑5291, para. 34; C‑248/99 P France v Monsanto and Commission [2002] ECR I‑1, para. 68; C‑189/02 P, C‑202/02 P, C‑205/02 P to C‑208/02 P and C‑213/02 P Dansk Rørindustri and Others v Commission [2005] ECR I‑5425, para. 426 Judgment of 19 March 2010 in T‑338/07 P Bianchi v ETF, not published in the ECR, para. 59 3. See the text of the decision. (see paras 59-63) See: Judgments of 14 October 2004 in C‑279/02 P Antas de Campos v Parliament, not published in the ECR, paras 32 and 35; 4 October 2007 in C‑320/05 P Olsen v Commission, not published in the ECR, paras 63 and 64; 9 June 2011 in C‑465/09 P to C‑470/09 P Diputacion Foral de Vizcaya and Others v Commission, not published in the ECR, para. 108 4. See the text of the decision. (see para. 66) See: C‑496/99 P Commission v CAS Succhi di Frutta [2004] ECR I‑3801, para. 68 and the case-law cited therein 5. See the text of the decision. (see para. 69) See: T‑256/10 P Marcuccio v Commission [2011] ECR-SC, para. 77