Order — ECLI:EU:F:2013:211
Date: 2013-12-12
Language of the case: Italian
Court formation: Third Chamber
Based on: Merger Treaty (1965)
Subject matter: Staff regulations and employment conditions - EC
Procedure: Staff cases - inadmissible;Action for damages - unfounded

Summary 1. Actions brought by officials — Interest in bringing proceedings — Need for a vested and present interest — Assessment as at the date on which the action is brought — Action capable of securing a benefit for the applicant (Staff Regulations, Arts 90 and 91) 2. Actions brought by officials — Judgment annulling a measure — Effects — Obligation to implement — Scope (Art. 266 TFEU) 1. For an official or former official to be able, within the framework of an action brought under Articles 90 and 91 of the Staff Regulations, to seek the annulment of an act which adversely affects him, within the meaning of Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations, he must have, at the time he brings the action, a vested and present interest, which is sufficiently established to have that act annulled, such an interest assuming that the action is likely, if successful, to benefit him. (see para. 23) See: 29 November 2006, T‑35/05, T‑61/05, T‑107/05, T‑108/05 and T‑139/05 Agne-Dapper and Others v Commission and Others, para. 35 and the case-law cited 11 September 2013, T‑475/11 P Marcuccio v Commission, paras 13 to 18 2. In order to comply with the obligation laid down in Article 266 TFEU, it is for the institution concerned to take the measures required in order to give effect to a judgment delivered in an action for annulment, exercising, subject to review by the European Union Courts, the discretion it has for this purpose, complying with both the operative part and grounds of the judgment it is required to give effect to and the provisions of EU law. With regard to enforcement of a judgment annulling a decision to retire an official on grounds of invalidity due to failure to state reasons and the adoption, where appropriate, of a new, duly reasoned decision on grounds of invalidity, it is in the first place for the institution concerned to determine the state of health of that official. (see paras 33- 34) See: 19 October 2006, T‑503/04 Pessoa e Costa v Commission, paras 69 and 70 and the case-law cited