Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2003:169
Date: 2003-06-17
Language of the case: French
Court formation: Fifth Chamber
Based on: Merger Treaty (1965)
Subject matter: Staff regulations and employment conditions - EC
Concepts: Admissibility and examination of applications, forms of order sought and pleas in law;European Investment Bank
Procedure: Staff cases - unfounded

SUMMARY - CASE I-385/00 
Summary 
1. Procedure - Originating application - Procedural requirements — Summary 
of the pleas in law relied on 
(EC Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 21, first para., and 53, first para.; Rules 
of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 44(1) (c)) 
2. Officials - Actions - Disputes between the European Investment Bank and its 
staff - Conditions of admissibility - Exhaustion of previous conciliation phase -
Excluded — Optional nature of such a procedure 
(Staff Regulations, Arts 90 and 91; Staff Regulations of the European Investment 
Bank, Art. 41) 
1. Under the first paragraph of Article 21 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, 
applicable to proceedings before the Court of First Instance by virtue of the first 
paragraph of Article 53 of the same statute, and under Article 44(1) (c) of the Rules 
of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, all applications must contain the 
subject-matter of the dispute and a brief statement of the pleas in law. Irrespective 
of any question of terminology, that statement must be sufficiently clear and precise 
to enable the defendant to prepare its defence and the Court to exercise its power 
of judicial review. In order to guarantee legal certainty and sound administration of 
justice it is necessary, for an action to be admissible, that the basic matters of law 
and fact relied on be indicated, at least in summary form, coherently and intelligibly 
in the application itself. The Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance do 
not require the applicant to state the specific provisions of the Treaty which entitle 
him to bring legal proceedings. 
(see paras 40-41) 
See: 2/6.3 to 10/63 San Michele and Others v High Authority [1963] ECR 327, 341 and 
342; T-85/92 De Hoe v Commission [1993] ECR II-523, para. 20; T-277/97 Ismeri 
I-A - 162 
SEILLER v HB 
Europa v Court oj Auditors [1999] ECR II-1825, para 29; T-164/01 Lucacciom v 
Commiision [2003] ECR-SC I-A-67 and II-367, para 63 
2. Unlike the Staff Regulations of Officials, the Staff Regulations of the European 
Investment Bank do not contain any provision requiring a conciliation procedure 
prior to an appeal. Article 41 of the Staff Regulations of the European Investment 
Bank refers to an amicable settlement procedure, which is carried out in addition to 
proceedings being instituted before the Community judicature. The admissibility of 
the appeal is therefore not subject to the exhaustion of a previous conciliation phase. 
(see paras 50-51. 73) 
See: T-7/98. T-208/98 and T-109/99 De Nicola v EIB [2001] ECR-SC I-A-49 and II-185, 
para 96 
I-A - 163