Order — ECLI:EU:F:2011:128
Date: 2011-09-08
Language of the case: Italian
Court formation: Second Chamber
Based on: Merger Treaty (1965)
Subject matter: Staff regulations and employment conditions - EC
Procedure: Action for damages - unfounded;Staff cases

Summary 1. Officials – Actions – Actions for damages – Application for annulment of the administrative decision rejecting the claim for compensation – Application having no independence of the claim for compensation (Staff Regulations, Arts 90 and 91) 2. Non-contractual liability – Conditions – Unlawfulness – Injury – Causal link – Cumulative conditions (TFEU, Art. 340(2)) 3. Procedure – Costs – Arbitrary or vexatious costs imposed on the Civil Service Tribunal where the action brought by an official is manifestly an abuse of process (Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal, Art. 94) 1. The claim for annulment directed against the positions adopted by an institution with respect to compensation during the administrative phase cannot be assessed independently of the claim for compensation. (see para. 20) See: 14 October 2004, T‑256/02 I v Court of Justice, para. 47 and the case-law cited 2. The European Union may incur non-contractual liability for the purposes of the second paragraph of Article 340 TFEU only if three cumulative conditions are satisfied, namely the unlawfulness of an administrative act or of conduct of which the institutions are accused, the occurrence of actual damage and the existence of a causal link between the conduct alleged and the harm relied on. It follows that the fact that one of those three conditions is not satisfied is sufficient for an action for damages to be dismissed. (see paras 22, 23) See: 9 September 1999, C‑257/98 P Lucaccioni v Commission, paras 11 and 14 and the case-law cited 21 February 2008, F‑4/07 Skoulidi v Commission, para. 43; 23 February 2010, F‑7/09 Faria v OHIM, para. 62 and the case-law cited 3. Under Article 94 of the Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal, if the Tribunal has incurred avoidable costs, in particular where the action is manifestly an abuse of process, it may order the party who caused such costs to be incurred to refund them in whole or in part, but the amount of that refund may not exceed EUR 2 000. It is appropriate to apply that provision in the case of an action brought by an official whose extremely numerous other applications to the EU Courts have already been dismissed, at least in part, as manifestly inadmissible or manifestly devoid of any basis in law and whose action is clearly arbitrary and vexatious, as the applicant has chosen to bring proceedings without any justification. (see paras 31, 33, 34) See: 6 December 2007, C‑59/06 P Marcuccio v Commission; 9 December 2009, C‑513/08 P Marcuccio v Commission, and C‑528/08 P Marcuccio v Commission 5 July 2005, T‑9/04 Marcuccio v Commission; 9 September 2008, T‑143/08 Marcuccio v Commission, and T‑144/08 Marcuccio v Commission; 26 June 2009, T‑114/08 P Marcuccio v Commission; 28 September 2009, T‑46/08 P Marcuccio v Commission 23 March 2010, T‑16/09 P Marcuccio v Commission; 28 October 2010, T‑32/09 P Marcuccio v Commission 11 May 2007, F‑2/06 Marcuccio v Commission; 6 December 2007, F‑40/06 Marcuccio v Commission; 14 December 2007, F‑21/07 Marcuccio v Commission; 4 November 2008, F‑18/07 Marcuccio v Commission and F‑87/07 Marcuccio v Commission; 18 February 2009, F‑70/07 Marcuccio v Commission; 31 March 2009, F‑146/07 Marcuccio v Commission; 20 July 2009, F‑86/07 Marcuccio v Commission; 7 October 2009, F‑122/07 Marcuccio v Commission and F‑3/08 Marcuccio v Commission; 16 March 2011, F‑21/10 Marcuccio v Commission