Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2007:38
Date: 2007-02-07
Language of the case: English
Court formation: Third 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;Action brought by a former official or staff member
Procedure: Action for damages - inadmissible;Staff cases - decision unnecessary

Summary 1. Officials – Actions – Interest in bringing proceedings (Staff Regulations, Arts 53, 78, 90 and 91; Annex VIII, Art. 14) 2. Procedure – Application initiating proceedings – Formal requirements (Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 21 and 53, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 44(1)(c)) 1. Since the career development report, in principle, only affects the interests of the person assessed until his service has definitely terminated, after termination of his service the official no longer has an interest in bringing or pursuing an action against such a report, save to establish the existence of a particular fact demonstrating a current, personal interest in obtaining the annulment of the report at issue. With regard to an official retired during the procedure at issue because of a permanent and total invalidity interrupting his career, in principle, definitively, the possibility of reemployment in the service pursuant to Article 14 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations simply constitutes an uncertain circumstance creating a merely hypothetical interest and is therefore not sufficient to establish that his legal position would be affected by the failure to annul the contested report. In that respect, whether or not the termination of service is voluntary is not relevant for assessing the existence of an interest in bringing proceedings. The right to effective judicial protection does not confer on the applicant a right to have the Community judicature rule on such an application for annulment, since it only entitles him to refer to the Court acts of the Community institutions which adversely affect him in so far as they affect his interests. (see paras 28, 32-34, 37) See: 204/85 Stroghili v Court of Auditors [1987] ECR 389, para. 11; of 1 October 2004 in C-379/03 P Pérez Escolar v Commission, not published in the ECR paras 41 and 42; T-97/94, N v Commission [1998] ECR-SC I‑A‑621 and II‑1879, paras 26 and 27; T-276/02 Forum 187 v Commission [2003] ECR II‑2075, para. 50; T‑105/03 Dionyssopoulou v Council [2005] ECR-SC I‑A‑137 and II‑621, para. 20; T-200/03 and T-313/03 V v Commission [2006] ECR-SC I-A-2-15 and II-A-2-57, para. 184 2. In order to satisfy the requirements of Article 21 of the Statute of the Court of Justice and Article 44(1)(c) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, an application seeking compensation for damage allegedly caused by a Community institution must state the evidence on which the conduct alleged against the institution may be identified, the reasons why it considers that a causal link exists between that conduct and the damage which it claims to have suffered, and the nature and extent of that damage. However, a claim for an unspecified form of damage is not sufficiently concrete and must therefore be regarded as inadmissible. That applies where an application from an official only claims damages in compensation for the damage to his career prospects, to his health and to his well being, without calculating the amount and without providing sufficiently concrete evidence to allow an assessment of the extent of the damage, yet does not establish or even invoke the existence of special circumstances which might have relieved the applicant of the need to provide that information. As regards non-material damage, whether a symbolic reparation or true compensation is sought, it is for the applicant to specify the nature of the non-material damage alleged in connection with the conduct of the institution complained of and to quantify the whole of that damage, even if approximately. (see paras 42-45) See: 5/71 Zuckerfabrik Schöppenstedt v Council [1971] ECR 975, para. 9; T‑64/89 Automec v Commission [1990] ECR II‑367, paras 75 to 77; T‑37/89 Hanning v Parliament [1990] ECR II‑463, para. 82; T‑505/93 Osório v Commission [1994] ECR-SC I‑A‑179 and II‑581, paras 33 and 35; T‑112/94 Moat v Commission [1995] ECR-SC I‑A‑37 and II‑135, paras 32, 37 and 38; T‑157/96 Affatato v Commission [1998] ECR-SC I‑A‑41 and II‑97, para. 38