Judgment — ECLI:EU:F:2011:22
Date: 2011-03-15
Language of the case: German
Court formation: Second Chamber
Based on: Merger Treaty (1965)
Subject matter: Staff regulations and employment conditions - EC
Procedure: Action for damages - unfounded;Staff cases - successful

summary fashion, and which is alleged to have caused his psychological condition. 85 The claim for compensation should in any event be rejected on the ground of lis pendens, as the alleged reasons for his disease are already fully covered by the action registered as Case F‑118/07 Strack v Commission. 86 Last, an action for damages should also be dismissed owing to the priority of the procedure under Article 73 of the Staff Regulations. Findings of the Tribunal 87 It follows from the claim for damages that the applicant seeks, primarily, the application of the second paragraph of Article 4 of Annex V to the Staff Regulations in respect of the 26.5 days of annual leave he did not take in 2004. 88 In that regard, it is sufficient to state that that claim coincides with the measures that will have to be taken by the Commission in order to execute the present annulment judgment. 89 Nor is there any need to adjudicate on the claim for compensation put forward by the applicant, as a subsidiary matter, in the event that the complaints directed against the decision of 15 March 2007 should be rejected by the Tribunal. 90 Consequently, the claim for damages must be rejected as devoid of purpose. Costs 91 Under Article 122 of the Rules of Procedure, the provisions of Title 2, Chapter 8, of those rules, on costs, are to apply only to cases brought before the Tribunal from the date on which those Rules of Procedure entered into force, namely 1 November 2007. The relevant provisions of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court on the subject are to continue to apply mutatis mutandis to cases pending before the Tribunal before that date. 92 Article 87(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court of the Union provides that the unsuccessful party is to be ordered to pay the costs if they have been applied for in the successful party’s pleadings. Since the Commission has essentially been unsuccessful, it must be ordered to pay the costs in accordance with the form of order sought by the applicant. On those grounds, THE CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL (Second Chamber) hereby: 1. Annuls the decision of the European Commission of 15 March 2007 rejecting Mr Strack’s request to carry over the balance of the days of leave for 2004; 2. Dismisses the action as to the remainder; 3. Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Mr Strack. Tagaras Van Raepenbusch Rofes i Pujol Delivered in open court in Luxembourg on 15 March 2011. Registrar President W. Hakenberg H. Tagaras * Language of the case: German.