Judgment — ECLI:EU:F:2007:226
Date: 2007-12-13
Language of the case: French
Court formation: Second Chamber
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;Appointment
Procedure: Staff cases;Action for damages

summary of the pleas in law on which it is based. In order to satisfy those requirements, an application for compensation for damage caused by a Community institution must contain information identifying the conduct which the applicant alleges against the institution, the reasons why he considers there to be a causal link between the conduct and the harm he claims to have suffered, and the nature and extent of that harm. A claim for any unspecified form of damages, on the other hand, is not sufficiently concrete and must therefore be regarded as inadmissible (Case 5/71 Zuckerfabrik Schöppenstedt v Council [1971] ECR 975, paragraph 9; orders in Cases T-505/93 Osório v Commission [1994] ECR-SC I‑A‑179 and II‑581, paragraph 33, and T-112/94 Moat v Commission [1995] ECR-SC I‑A‑37 and II‑135, paragraph 32; Case T‑175/04 Gordon v Commission [2007] ECR-SC I-A-0000 and II‑0000, paragraph 42). 87 In the present case it should be noted that, in claiming in her application ‘the grant in principle … of her claim for compensation, to be quantified at a later date, resulting from the material and non-material damage … inflicted by the [Commission]’, the applicant did not quantify the total sum of the harm she considers she has sustained. The fact that, in her reply, she sought an order directing the Commission to compensate her ‘for the material and non-material damage suffered, with a provisional interim payment of damages of EUR 1, subject to all necessary reservations’, also does not provide the particulars required by the case-law referred to above. 88 Nor did the applicant adduce any evidence from which the extent of the damage allegedly suffered might be assessed (Moat v Commission, paragraph 35). She did admittedly specify that she had suffered material damage as a result of the loss of earnings arising from the refusal to recruit her, and of her preparations for her move (letting out her apartment on a short-term lease, training courses, vaccinations, etc.). However, that summary information does not allow extent of the harm to be assessed precisely. 89 Yet, if there were such material damage the conclusion must be that it could quite easily have been quantified at the time of the complaint, and, a fortiori, when the application was made, since that material damage is based on the loss of earnings resulting from not being recruited, and on the costs incurred by the applicant in preparing for her move to Africa. 90 Furthermore, although the Community judicature has accepted that, in certain special circumstances, it is not absolutely necessary to particularise the exact extent of the alleged loss in the application or to calculate the amount of the compensation claimed (Case C-150/03 P Hectors v Parliament [2004] ECR I‑8691, paragraph 62; Osório v Commission, paragraph 35), it should be pointed out that, in the present case, the applicant has not established, or even asserted, the existence of such special circumstances (see, in support of this, Osório v Commission, paragraph 35, and Moat v Commission, paragraph 37). 91 As regards the non-material damage, it should be emphasised that, quite apart from the complete absence of any quantification of that damage, the applicant has not placed the Tribunal in a position to assess its extent or character. Regardless of whether the compensation for non-material damage is claimed as a symbolic reparation or in order to obtain true compensation, it is for the applicant to specify the nature of the alleged non-material damage in relation to the conduct complained of against the Commission, and then to quantify, even approximately, the total of that damage (Moat v Commission, paragraph 38; Gordon v Commission, paragraph 45). 92 It follows that the claim for compensation does not satisfy the conditions for admissibility. 93 A further point to be noted is that, even if the applicant had merely sought token damages, the annulment of the contested decision must be regarded as constituting, in the present case, sufficient and adequate compensation for her losses (see, in support of this, Case T-10/99 Vicente Nuñez v Commission [2000] ECR‑SC I‑A‑47 and II‑203, paragraph 48). 94 It follows from all of the foregoing that the action must be upheld as regards the application for annulment of the contested decision, and dismissed as regards the claim for damages. Costs 95 Under Article 122 of the Rules of Procedure, the provisions of Title 2, Chapter 8, on costs apply only to cases brought before the Tribunal from the date on which these Rules enter into force. The provisions of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance continue to apply mutatis mutandis to cases pending before the Tribunal before that date. 96 Under the terms of Article 87(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, the unsuccessful party is to be ordered to pay the costs if they have been applied for in the successful party’s pleadings. However, under Article 88 of the same Rules of Procedure, in proceedings between the Communities and their servants the institutions are to bear their own costs. Where each party succeeds on some and fails on other heads, the Tribunal may, under the first paragraph of Article 87(3) of the same Rules of Procedure, order that the costs be shared or that each party bear its own costs. 97 Since the Commission’s pleas have for the main part been unsuccessful, it should be ordered to pay the costs. On those grounds, THE TRIBUNAL (Second Chamber) hereby: 1. Annuls the decision of the Director of Directorate K ‘External Service’ of Directorate-General (DG) ‘External Relations’ of the Commission of the European Communities of 15 April 2005, informing the applicant that she would not be recruited as head of administration of the Commission delegation in Guinea; 2. Dismisses the remainder of the action; 3. Orders the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs. Van Raepenbusch Boruta Kanninen Delivered in open court in Luxembourg on 13 December 2007. W. Hakenberg S. Van Raepenbusch Registrar President The text of the present decision and those of the decisions of the Community Courts cited in it which have not yet been published in the European Court Reports are available on the internet site of the Court of Justice: www.curia.europa.eu * Language of the case: French.