Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2003:43
Date: 2003-02-26
Based on: Merger Treaty (1965)
Subject matter: Staff regulations and employment conditions - EC
Concepts: Admissibility and examination of applications, forms of order sought and pleas in law;General;Res judicata
Procedure: Staff cases - inadmissible

SUMMARY — CASE T-164/01 
Summary 
1. Officials - Actions - Objection of res judicata - Conditions - Same parties, 
purpose and submissions in both actions 
(Staff Regulations, Art. 91) 
2. Proceedings - Application initiating proceedings - Formal requirement -
Summary of the pleas in law on which the application is based - Evidence offered 
in support - Action for damages 
(EC Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 19, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the 
Court of First Instance, Art. 44(1) (c), (d) and (e)) 
1. The objection of res judicata applies where two actions are between the same 
parties, concern the same subject-matter and are based on the same grounds. 
Consequently, the fact that the Court of First Instance has given judgment on an 
application made by a former official for compensation for non-material damage 
suffered as a result of an occupational disease and subsequent to the onset of that 
disease does not allow such an objection to be put forward against an application 
made by the same applicant, but for compensation for non-material damage suffered 
before the onset of the disease. 
(see paras 28, 34-35, 37) 
See: 159/84,267/84, 12/85 and 264/85 Ainsworth and Others v Commission [1987] ECR 
1579; T-26/96 Lopes v Court of Justice [1996] ECR-SC I-A-487 and II-1357, para. 14 
and the case-law cited; T-165/95 Lucaccioni v Commission [1998] ECR-SC I-A-203 and 
II-627, paras 82 to 85 
2. Under the first paragraph of Article 19 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, 
applicable to the procedure before the Court of First Instance by virtue of the first 
paragraph of Article 46 of the Statute, and Article 44(1) (c), (d) and (e) of the Rules 
of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, an application initiating proceedings 
I-A - 68 
LUCACCIONI v COMMISSION 
must, in particular, state the subject-matter of the proceedings, the form of order 
sought by the applicant, a summary of the pleas in law on which the application is 
based and any evidence offered in support. Those particulars must be sufficiently 
clear and precise to enable the defendant to prepare his defence and to enable the 
Court to give judgment in the action without having to seek further information, if 
appropriate. In order to guarantee legal certainty and the sound administration of 
justice it is necessary, for an action to be admissible, that the basic legal and factual 
particulars relied on are indicated, at least in summary form, coherently and 
intelligibly in the text of the application itself. 
In order to satisfy those requirements, an application seeking compensation for 
damage caused by a Community institution must state the evidence from which the 
conduct which the applicant alleges against the institution can be identified, the 
reasons for which the applicant considers that there is a causal link between the 
conduct and the damage it claims to have suffered, and the nature and extent of that 
damage. That is not the case where an application does not give a sufficiently 
precise indication of the facts from which the nature and extent of the damage might 
be assessed without establishing the existence of special circumstances exempting 
the applicant from the need to specify those facts. 
(see paras 63, 65) 
See: T-64/89 Automec v Commission [1990] ECR II-367. para. 73: T-85/92 De Hoe v 
Commission [1993] ECR II-523, para. 20: T-505/93 Osório v Commission [1994] 
ECR-SC I-A-179 and II-581. para. 33 el seq.: T-112/94 Moat v Commission [1995] 
ECR-SC I-A-37 and II-135. paras 32 and 37; T-113/96 Dubois et Fils v Council and 
Commission [1998] ECR II-125, para. 30 and the case-law cited, confirmed by C-95/98 
P Dubois et Fils v Council and Commission [1999] ECR I-4835; T-154/98 Asia Motor 
France and Others v Commission [1999] ECR II-1703. para. 49; T-277797 Ismeri Europa 
v Court of Auditors [1999] ECR II-1825. para. 29 
I-A - 69