Opinion of the Advocate General — ECLI:EU:C:2010:118
Date: 2010-03-04
Language of the case: Greek
Based on: Merger Treaty (1965)
Subject matter: Staff regulations and employment conditions - EC
Procedure: Appeal - unfounded;Staff cases;Action for damages - inadmissible

summary in paragraph 18 of the judgment under appeal. 10 – Paragraphs 27 to 43 of the judgment under appeal. 11 – Paragraphs 44 to 46 of the judgment under appeal. 12 – Case C‑283/90 P Vidrányi v Commission [1991] ECR I‑4339, paragraph 29, and Case C‑197/99 P Belgium v Commission (‘Forges de Clabecq’) [2003] ECR I‑8461, paragraphs 80 to 83; see, to the same effect, Case T-498/07 P Krcova v Court of Justice [2009] ECR II-0000, paragraph 34; see also the Opinion of Advocate General Lenz in Case C‑39/93 P SFEI and Others v Commission [1994] ECR I-2681, point 36. 13 – Case C‑185/95 P Baustahlgewebe v Commission (‘Baustahlgewebe’) [1998] ECR I-8417, paragraph 25; Case C‑401/96 P Somaco v Commission [1998] ECR I-2587, paragraph 53; Case C‑47/07 P Masdar (UK) v Commission [2008] ECR I-9761, paragraph 76; and Case C‑385/07 P Der Grüne Punkt – Duales System Deutschland v Commission (‘Der Grüne Punkt’) [2009] ECR I-0000, paragraph 71. 14 – Paragraphs 25 to 31 of the Report for the Hearing in the proceedings at first instance. 15 – Paragraph 18 of the judgment under appeal. 16 – In English: ‘pleas of annulment’. 17 – Case C‑136/92 P Commission v Brazzelli Lualdi and Others [1994] ECR I‑1981, paragraphs 57 to 59; Joined Cases C‑189/02 P, C‑202/02 P, C‑205/02 P to C‑208/02 P and C‑213/02 P Dansk Rørindustri and Others v Commission [2005] ECR I‑5425, paragraph 165; Case C‑229/05 P PKK and KNK v Council [2007] ECR I‑439, paragraph 66; and Case C‑202/07 P France Télécom v Commission [2009] ECR I-0000, paragraph 60. 18 – It is clear from his application to the General Court (see paragraphs 27 to 41 thereof) that Mr Gogos devoted around half of his written submissions at first instance to his arguments concerning Article 233 EC and to the principles of equal treatment, equity, sound administration and reasonable career prospects for officials. 19 – Case C‑259/96 P Council v de Nil and Impens [1998] ECR I‑2915, paragraphs 32 and 33, and France Télécom v Commission (cited in footnote 17, paragraph 29). 20 – Case C‑274/99 P Connolly v Commission [2001] ECR I‑1611, paragraph 121; Joined Cases C‑120/06 P and C‑121/06 P FIAMM and FIAMM Technologies v Council and Commission (‘FIAMM’) [2008] ECR I‑6513, paragraph 91; and France Télécom v Commission (cited in footnote 17, paragraph 30). 21 – Case C‑431/07 P Bouygues and Bouygues Télécom v Commission [2009] ECR I‑0000, paragraph 42, and Case C‑440/07 P Commission v Schneider Electric [2009] ECR I-0000, paragraph 135. 22 – Judgment of 25 October 2007 in Case C‑167/06 P Komninou and Others v Commission, paragraph 22, not published in the ECR. 23 – Paragraphs 27 to 43 of the judgment under appeal. 24 – Paragraph 44 of the judgment under appeal. 25 – Paragraphs 45 and 46 of the judgment under appeal. 26 – Case C‑362/05 P Wunenburger v Commission [2007] ECR I‑4333, paragraph 80. 27 – I would point out merely in passing that the General Court incorrectly refers to an oral examination ‘in September 2002’, which came about ‘as a consequence of the judgment in Gogos v Commission’. As Mr Gogos himself rightly points out, the oral examination in question did not take place in September 2002 but in November 2002, and was prompted not by an earlier judgment in Gogos v Commission but by the settlement reached between the parties in Case T‑97/01. 28 – See also to this effect Case C‑135/06 P Weißenfels v Parliament [2007] ECR I‑12041, paragraph 69. 29 – Weißenfels v Parliament (cited in footnote 28, paragraph 65). 30 – Weißenfels v Parliament (cited in footnote 28, in particular paragraphs 62 and 66), and Case C‑90/95 P de Compte v Parliament [1997] ECR I‑1999, paragraph 45. 31 – Case 24/79 Oberthür v Commission [1980] ECR 1743, paragraph 14, and Joined Cases 176/86 and 177/86 Houyoux and Guery v Commission [1987] ECR 4333, paragraph 16 in conjunction with paragraph 1; see also Case T‑159/96 Wenk v Commission [1998] ECR-SC I‑A‑193 and II‑593, paragraph 122; Case T‑10/02 Girardot v Commission [2004] ECR-SC I‑A‑109 and II‑483, paragraph 89; and T‑404/06 P ETF v Landgren [2009] ECR II-0000, paragraph 233. 32 – Case 83/63 Krawczynski v Commission [1965] ECR 623. 33 – Weißenfels v Parliament (cited in footnote 28, paragraph 67), and Case C‑197/09 RX-II M v EMEA [2009] ECR I-0000, paragraph 56. 34 – Oberthür v Commission (cited in footnote 31, paragraph 14); Houyoux and Guery v Commission (cited in footnote 31, paragraph 16); Case C‑348/06 P Commission v Girardot [2008] ECR I‑833, paragraph 58; M v EMEA (cited in footnote 33, paragraph 56); and Wenk v Commission (cited in footnote 31, paragraph 122); the same approach was taken in Case 44/59 Fiddelaar v Commission [1960] ECR 535. 35 – Paragraph 47 of the judgment under appeal. 36 – See also in this regard points 60 and 61 of this Opinion. 37 – Girardot v Commission, cited in footnote 31, paragraph 26. 38 – Following the judgment in FIAMM , cited in footnote 20, in particular paragraphs 174 to 179, as EU law currently stands, compensation for the consequences of lawful legislative acts of the institutions of the European Union is, as a rule, precluded. By contrast, the question of compensation for the consequences of lawful administrative acts remains open. 39 – See also in this regard points 70 to 79 of this Opinion. 40 – Paragraphs 30 to 35 of the judgment under appeal. 41 – Case C‑155/98 P Alexopoulou v Commission [1999] ECR I‑4069, paragraphs 34 to 36. 42 – Case 146/84 De Santis v Court of Auditors [1985] ECR 1723, paragraph 9; Alexopoulou v Commission (cited in footnote 41, paragraphs 32, 33 and 36); Case T‑133/02 Chawdhry v Commission [2003] ECR-SC I‑A‑329 and II‑1617, paragraph 36; and Case T-436/07 P Giannopoulos v Council [2009] ECR II-0000, paragraphs 34 and 52. 43 – De Santis v Court of Auditors (cited in footnote 42, paragraph 9). 44 – Alexopoulou v Commission (cited in footnote 41, paragraphs 31, 34 and 36). 45 – Case C‑344/04 IATA and ELFAA [2006] ECR I‑403, paragraph 95; Case C‑303/05 Advocaten voor de Wereld [2007] ECR I‑3633, paragraph 56; Case C‑127/07 Arcelor Atlantique et Lorraine and Others (‘Arcelor’) [2008] ECR I-9895, paragraph 23; and Case C‑558/07 S.P.C.M. and Others [2009] ECR I-0000, paragraph 74. 46 – Arcelor (cited in footnote 45, paragraph 26). 47 – Nor does the General Court indicate otherwise in paragraph 47 of the judgment under appeal. On the loss of an opportunity as recoverable damage generally, see Commission v Girardot (cited in footnote 34, paragraphs 54 and 55); see also Case T-91/95 De Nil and Impens v Council [1996] ECR-SC I‑A‑327 and II‑959, paragraph 38, which the Court of Justice did not call in question in this regard in Council v de Nil and Impens (cited in footnote 19). 48 – See above, point 68 of this Opinion. 49 – Cases T‑95/98 and T‑97/01 (in this regard, see points 11 to 14 of this Opinion, above). 50 – Case T‑95/08 Gogos v Commission (cited in footnote 5, paragraphs 60 to 62). 51 – Order in Case T‑97/01 Gogos v Commission (cited in footnote 6, paragraph 2). 52 – See, inter alia, Commission v Girardot (cited in footnote 34, paragraph 52). 53 – Baustahlgewebe (cited in footnote 13, paragraph 141). 54 – FIAMM (cited in footnote 20, in particular paragraphs 205 and 211). 55 – Baustahlgewebe (cited in footnote 13, paragraph 49); FIAMM (cited in footnote 20, paragraph 203); and Der Grüne Punkt, paragraphs 190 to 193. 56 – Formerly Article 235 EC in conjunction with the second paragraph of Article 288 EC. 57 – Der Grüne Punkt (cited in footnote 13, paragraph 195). 58 – Baustahlgewebe (cited in footnote 13, paragraph 21) and Der Grüne Punkt (cited in footnote 13, paragraphs 177 to 179). 59 – Der Grüne Punkt (cited in footnote 13, paragraph 181). 60 – The application at first instance was lodged on 18 February 2004; the judgment under appeal was given on 15 October 2008. 61 – The written procedure at first instance ended with the service of the rejoinder on 17 November 2004; the hearing took place on 15 February 2008. 62 – See, in this regard, the findings of the General Court in paragraph 51 of the judgment under appeal.