Information;Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2024:746
Date: 2024-10-23
Language of the case: English
Based on: Merger Treaty (1965)
Subject matter: Staff regulations and employment conditions - EC
Procedure: Staff cases - unfounded;Staff cases - inadmissible;Staff cases - successful;Staff cases - decision unnecessary

summary of the pleas in law on which the application is based. That statement must be sufficiently clear and precise to enable the defendant to prepare its defence and the Court to rule on the action, if necessary, without any further information. Accordingly, it is necessary, in order for an action to be admissible, that the basic legal and factual particulars relied on be indicated, at least in summary form, coherently and intelligibly in the application itself (see, to that effect, order of 11 March 2021, Techniplan v Commission, T‑426/20, not published, EU:T:2021:129, paragraph 19 and the case-law cited). 103 In order to meet those requirements, an application seeking compensation for damage allegedly caused by an EU institution or agency must state the evidence from which the conduct which the applicant alleges against the institution can be identified and the reasons why the applicant considers that there is a causal link between the conduct and the damage which the applicant claims to have suffered, and the nature and extent of that damage (judgment of 10 November 2004, Vonier v Commission, T‑165/03, EU:T:2004:331, paragraph 75). 104 In the second place, according to settled case-law, where the damage for which compensation is claimed stems from conduct on the part of the administration which does not involve it adopting a decision, the administrative procedure must commence with the submission of a request, within the meaning of Article 90(1) of the Staff Regulations, for compensation, and continue, where appropriate, with a complaint against the decision rejecting that request (see, to that effect, judgment of 17 December 2003, McAuley v Council, T‑324/02, EU:T:2003:346, paragraph 91, and order of 18 October 2006, Staelen v Parliament, T‑32/05, not published, EU:T:2006:328, paragraph 32). 105 However, the applicant’s complaint of 14 March 2022 does not refer to a claim for compensation based on EUIPO’s alleged delay in implementing the judgment of 13 January 2021, ZR v EUIPO (T‑610/18, not published, EU:T:2021:5), and does not contain any evidence from which EUIPO could have deduced, even by endeavouring to interpret the complaint with an open mind, that the applicant intended to claim such compensation. 106 As regards the material damage, it should be noted that it is not described in the application, with the result that the claim relating to it must be rejected as inadmissible in accordance with the case-law cited in paragraph 102 above. 107 The claim for compensation must therefore be dismissed. Costs 108 Under Article 134(1) of the Rules of Procedure, the unsuccessful party is to be ordered to pay the costs if they have been applied for in the successful party’s pleadings. 109 Since EUIPO has essentially been unsuccessful with its arguments, it must be ordered to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the applicant, in accordance with the form of order sought by the latter. On those grounds, THE GENERAL COURT (Tenth Chamber) hereby: 1. Annuls the decision of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 14 December 2021 in so far as it awards a sum of EUR 5 000 to ZR in compliance with the judgment of 13 January 2021, ZR v EUIPO (T‑610/18); 2. Dismisses the action as to the remainder; 3. Orders EUIPO to pay ZR financial compensation in the amount of EUR 10 000; 4. Orders EUIPO to pay the costs. Porchia Nihoul Verschuur Delivered in open court in Luxembourg on 23 October 2024. V. Di Bucci S. Papasavvas Registrar President * Language of the case: English.