Order — ECLI:EU:T:2015:705
Date: 2015-09-21
Language of the case: Italian
Court formation: Appeals Chamber
Based on: Merger Treaty (1965)
Subject matter: Staff regulations and employment conditions - EC
Procedure: Appeal - unfounded;Appeal - inadmissible;Staff cases

Summary 1. Appeal — Interest in bringing proceedings — Condition — Appeal capable of procuring an advantage for the party bringing it (Statute of the Court of Justice, Annex I, Art. 9) 2. Actions brought by officials — Staff of the European Investment Bank — Subject-matter — Directions to the administration — Inadmissibility 3. Actions brought by officials — Unlimited jurisdiction — Compensation for material harm suffered by reason of an unlawful act of the administration — Assessment — Criteria — Obligation to state reasons — Scope (Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 36 and Annex I, Art. 7(1); Staff Regulations, Art. 91(1)) 1. An appeal, within the meaning of Article 9 of Annex I to the Statute of the Court of Justice, may be brought only by a party which has been unsuccessful, in whole or in part, in its submissions before the Civil Service Tribunal, inasmuch as the appeal must be capable of having some effect on the operative part of the contested judgment and of procuring an advantage for that party. (see para. 21) See: Judgments of 19 October 1995 in Rendo and Others v Commission, C‑19/93 P, ECR, EU:C:1995:339, para. 13, and 13 July 2000 in Parliament v Richard, C‑174/99 P, ECR, EU:C:2000:412, para. 33 2. It is not for the Union judicature to make findings of principle or issue directions to the administration. Accordingly, a claim by which a member of staff of the European Investment Bank seeks a finding that he has in fact suffered the psychological harassment he alleges, together with his claim for an order directing the Bank to bring the alleged harassment to an end, must be declared to be manifestly unfounded. (see paras 31, 34) See: Judgments of 16 December 2004 in De Nicola v EIB, T‑120/01 and T‑300/01, ECR-SC, EU:T:2004:367, para. 136, and 24 November 2010 in Marcuccio v Commission, T‑9/09 P, ECR-SC, EU:T:2010:477, para. 44 and the case-law cited therein 3. When the Civil Service Tribunal has found that there is damage, it is for the Tribunal alone to assess, within the confines of the claim, how and to what extent the reparation for the damage should be provided, subject to the qualification that in order for the General Court to be able to review the judgments of the Tribunal, those judgments must be sufficiently reasoned and, as regards the quantification of damage, they must state the criteria taken into account for the determination of the amount decided upon. (see para. 45) See: Judgment of 5 November 2014 in Commission v Thomé, T‑669/13 P, ECR-SC, EU:T:2014:929, para. 79