Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:1998:174
Date: 1998-07-16
Language of the case: French
Court formation: Second Chamber
Based on: Merger Treaty (1965)
Subject matter: Staff regulations and employment conditions - EC
Concepts: Conditions of engagement;Recovery of undue payment;Plea alleging a manifest error of assessment
Procedure: Staff cases - unfounded

summary of the pleas in law on which [it] is based', the applicant did 
not raise any plea or argument in support of that claim in his reply. His claim is 
therefore inadmissible (paragraph 75). 
As regards the applicant's claim that the Commission must be ordered to repay the 
sums already received pursuant to the decision of 15 November 1996, the 
Community judicature has no jurisdiction to issue directions to the Community 
institutions (paragraph 76). 
See: T-99/95 Stött v Commission [1996] ECR-SC 11-1583 
Claim for compensation 
Liability on the part of the Community supposes that a number of conditions are met 
as regards the unlawfulness of the conduct of which the institutions are accused, 
actual damage and a causal link between the conduct and the damage alleged to have 
been suffered (paragraph 85). 
See: C-136/92 P Commission v BrazzelliLualdi and Others [1994] ECR 1-1981, para. 42 
As is apparent from examination of the pleas submitted in the context of the claim 
for the annulment of the decision of 13 November 1995, the applicant has failed to 
show that the Commission committed an error susceptible of rendering it liable 
where it paid him the installation allowance in the form of an advance. 
I-A - 418 
JENSEN v COMMISSION 
The claim for damages in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary harm must 
therefore be rejected without its being necessary to consider whether the other two 
conditions are met (paragraphs 88 and 89). 
Operative part: 
The application is dismissed. 
I-A - 419