Information;Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2021:871
Date: 2021-12-08
Language of the case: English
Court formation: Eighth Chamber
Subject matter: Provisions governing the Institutions;Access to documents
Procedure: Action for annulment - unfounded;Action for annulment - successful;Action for damages - inadmissible

summary of those pleas in law. Those elements must be sufficiently clear and precise to enable the defendant to prepare its defence and to enable the Court to rule on the action, if necessary without any further information. In order to guarantee legal certainty and sound administration of justice it is necessary, in order for an action to be admissible, that the basic legal and factual particulars relied on be indicated coherently and intelligibly in the application itself (see, to that effect, order of 12 September 2018, RE v Commission, T‑257/17, not published, EU:T:2018:549, paragraph 54 and the case-law cited). 140 Accordingly, an application seeking compensation for damage allegedly caused by an institution must indicate with sufficient precision the manner in which the various conditions for reparation of the alleged damage are satisfied (see order of 12 September 2018, RE v Commission, T‑257/17, not published, EU:T:2018:549, paragraph 55 and the case-law cited). Such an application must therefore contain the evidence which makes it possible to identify, first, the conduct which the applicant alleges against the institution, secondly, the reasons for which the applicant considers that there is a causal link between that conduct and the damage which he or she claims to have suffered, and, thirdly, the nature and extent of that damage (judgments of 10 July 1990, Automec v Commission, T‑64/89, EU:T:1990:42, paragraph 73; of 30 June 2009, CPEM v Commission, T‑444/07, EU:T:2009:227, paragraph 33; and order of 12 September 2018, RE v Commission, T‑257/17, not published, EU:T:2018:549, paragraph 56). 141 More specifically, as regards the condition that an applicant must place the Court in a position to assess the extent and nature of the damage which he or she claims to have suffered, it is for that applicant to specify, inter alia, the nature of the non-material damage alleged in connection with the conduct complained of on the part of the institution concerned and to quantify the whole of that damage, even if approximately (see, to that effect, judgments of 15 June 1999, Ismeri Europa v Court of Auditors, T‑277/97, EU:T:1999:124, paragraph 81 and the case-law cited; of 7 February 2007, Gordon v Commission, T‑175/04, EU:T:2007:38, paragraph 45; and order of 12 September 2018, RE v Commission, T‑257/17, not published, EU:T:2018:549, paragraph 61). 142 In the present case, it is difficult to ascertain the specific nature of the non-material damage alleged and, accordingly, to assess the existence and extent thereof. The applicant merely refers to non-material damage and unfair and unjust treatment, without providing any further details. She does not explain what non-material damage she has suffered. 143 Moreover, the issue of the existence of a causal link is not addressed. Indeed, the applicant does not seek to explain, in detail, how the way in which her initial application for access was processed by EPSO gave rise to any non-material damage whatsoever or what effect the unfair and unjust treatment she allegedly suffered had on her. It follows that the Court is not in a position to assess whether the applicant has succeeded in showing the existence of a causal link. 144 In addition, the ‘few observations on the fourth plea’ in the reply do not call those findings into question. The matters raised, as summarised in paragraph 136 above, do not specify the extent of the non-material damage alleged, which it is for the applicant to prove (see, to that effect, judgment of 10 March 2021, AM v EIB, T‑134/19, EU:T:2021:119, paragraph 86), or the causal link between that damage and the way in which EPSO processed her initial request for access. 145 In those circumstances, in the absence of any information whatsoever relating to the nature of the non-material damage allegedly suffered or details regarding the existence of a causal link, the claim for damages does not meet the requirements recalled in paragraphs 138 to 141 above. 146 Accordingly, the claim for damages made by the applicant must be rejected as manifestly inadmissible. Costs 147 The applicant submits that the Commission’s attitude was responsible for all the procedural steps she took and that the Commission left her no choice but to bring the present action. 148 The Commission disputes the applicant’s arguments. 149 It must be noted that the applicant does not explain in what way the costs incurred in the present proceedings are unreasonable or vexatious within the meaning of Article 135(2) of the Rules of Procedure. 150 In addition, it must be stated that the Commission provided the applicant with all the necessary information to bring the present action, likewise making it possible for the General Court to exercise its power of review. 151 Pursuant to Article 134(3) of the Rules of Procedure, where each party succeeds on some and fails on other heads, the parties are to bear their own costs. However, if it appears justified in the circumstances of the case, the Court may order that one party, in addition to bearing its own costs, pay a proportion of the costs of the other party. 152 Therefore, it is a fair assessment of the circumstances of the case to order each party to bear its own costs. On those grounds, THE GENERAL COURT (Eighth Chamber) hereby: 1. Annuls Commission Decision C(2020) 1195 final of 24 February 2020 concerning a confirmatory application for access to documents under Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 in so far as it refused to grant JP access to the questions set out in the sections of the evaluation by the assessors of her answers during the field-related interview (Document No 1) headed ‘Anchor’ and ‘Possible questions’ and refused to grant access to the questions set out in the sections of the evaluation by the assessors of her answers during the general competency-based interview (Document No 2) headed ‘Situation 1’, ‘Situation 2’ and ‘Situation 3’ in the context of Competition EPSO/AD/363/18; 2. Dismisses the action as to the remainder; 3. Orders each party to bear its own costs. Svenningsen Barents Pynnä Delivered in open court in Luxembourg on 8 December 2021. E. Coulon M. van der Woude Registrar President Table of contents Background to the dispute Procedure and forms of order sought Law The claim for annulment The second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 4(3) of Regulation No 1049/2001 (1) The second part of the second plea in law (2) The first part of the second plea in law The third plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 4(6) of Regulation No 1049/2001 and breach of the principle of proportionality The claim for damages Costs * Language of the case: English.