Order — ECLI:EU:F:2012:168
Date: 2012-12-03
Language of the case: English
Court formation: First Chamber
Based on: Merger Treaty (1965)
Subject matter: Staff regulations and employment conditions - EC
Procedure: Staff cases - inadmissible;Action for damages - inadmissible

summary’ of that application, the applicant merely claims, without adequately substantiating her submissions, that the contested decision infringed the fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU, Article 268 TFEU and the second paragraph of Article 340 TFEU. Although, in order to demonstrate the soundness of her arguments, the applicant also refers to the annexes to the application, the Tribunal cannot substitute its own assessment for that of the applicant; nor is it for the Tribunal to seek out and identify, in the annexes, the pleas on which it might consider the action to be based, since the annexes have a purely evidential and instrumental function. 21 It follows that the claims for annulment of the contested decision must be rejected as manifestly inadmissible. Claims for damages 22 The applicant claims that the Tribunal should order the Commission to pay her damages for the harm which she has suffered since 2008 and which she may suffer until her reintegration into an institution or another delegation of the European Union. 23 However, it is not possible, from the wording of the application, to identify with sufficient accuracy the error or errors which the Commission is alleged to have committed and which are said to have brought about the harm purportedly suffered by the applicant. 24 Accordingly, the claims for damages must be rejected as manifestly inadmissible. 25 It follows from all the foregoing that the action must be dismissed in its entirety as manifestly inadmissible. Costs 26 Under Article 87(1) of the Rules of Procedure, without prejudice to the other provisions of Chapter 8 of Title 2 of those Rules, the unsuccessful party is to be ordered to pay the costs if they have been applied for in the successful party’s pleadings. Under Article 87(2), the Tribunal may, if equity so requires, decide that an unsuccessful party is to pay only part of the costs or even that that party is not to be ordered to pay any. 27 It follows from the grounds of the present order that the applicant is the unsuccessful party. Furthermore, the Commission expressly claimed in its pleadings that the applicant should be ordered to pay the costs. Since the circumstances of the present case do not warrant application of Article 87(2) of the Rules of Procedure, the applicant must bear her own costs and be ordered to pay the costs incurred by the Commission. On those grounds, THE CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL (First Chamber) hereby orders: 1. The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible. 2. BT must bear her own costs and is ordered pay the costs incurred by the European Commission. Luxembourg, 3 December 2012. W. Hakenberg H. Kreppel Registrar President * Language of the case: English.