Order — ECLI:EU:F:2012:25
Date: 2012-02-29
Language of the case: Italian
Court formation: First Chamber
Based on: Merger Treaty (1965)
Subject matter: Staff regulations and employment conditions - EC
Procedure: Staff cases - inadmissible;Action for damages - inadmissible

Summary 1. Officials — Social security — Insurance against the risk of accident and of occupational disease — Accident file — Concept — Definition under Union law — None (Staff Regulations, Arts 26, 26a and 73) 2. Officials — Actions — Act adversely affecting an official — Concept — Request for a document to be placed on the file of an official who has initiated the procedure for recognition of an accident — Preparatory act — Not included (Staff Regulations, Arts 90 and 91; Rules on insurance against the risk of accident and of occupational disease, Arts 16 to 25) 3. Procedure — Court costs — Costs incurred by the Civil Service Tribunal as a result of an action which is an abuse of process by an official — Order for the official to refund those costs (Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal, Art. 94; Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 47) 4. General principles of Union law — Principle of the right to effective legal protection — Action which is an abuse of process by an official — Implications 1. There are no provisions relating to the constitution of an accident file in either Article 73 of the Staff Regulations, in the section dealing in particular with insurance against the risk of accident, or in the Rules on insurance against the risk of accident and of occupational disease specifically provided for in that article of the Staff Regulations. The concept of such a file also does not fall within the scope of Article 26 or Article 26a of the Staff Regulations. (see paras 31, 33) 2. In a medical procedure for recognition of an accident that has been properly declared by the official concerned, and then for definition of the degree of invalidity after consolidation of the injuries resulting from that accident, the official’s request that a document containing information about him be placed on his ‘accident file’, which is simply the file on the examination of his application for recognition of an accident and then for definition of the resulting degree of invalidity, may not be regarded as a request within the meaning of Article 90(1) of the Staff Regulations, the implied rejection of which might be the subject of a complaint under Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations and then an appeal under Article 91 of the Staff Regulations. Articles 16 to 25 of the Rules on insurance against the risk of accident and of occupational disease permit the inference that the procedure is a special, strictly medical one which may be initiated only by the official concerned or those entitled under him. The procedure is therefore not of an administrative nature and is, in any event, not an administrative procedure capable of affecting the official’s administrative position. Consequently, the request for the document to be placed on the file is a request which is internal to the medical procedure in question, since the inclusion of the document in the ‘accident file’ comes under the power of the authority in charge of that file to determine how it is organised and examined. That being so, it is for the authority responsible for examining the application for recognition of an accident and, subsequently, for defining the resulting degree of invalidity, to ensure, as part of the proper conduct of the medical procedure relating to that accident, that the ‘accident file’ is handled efficiently and competently, taking all appropriate measures. (see paras 34, 39) 3. Under Article 94 of the Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal, if the Tribunal has incurred avoidable costs, in particular where the action is manifestly an abuse of process, it may order the party who caused such costs to be incurred to refund them in whole or in part, but the amount of that refund may not exceed EUR 2 000. That provision must be applied where the courts of the Union have already found, on a number of occasions, that the applicant official had opted to bring legal proceedings for no good reason, and that the action in question is the continuation of that process. (see paras 50, 51) 4. The fundamental requirement of effective legal protection must, first, enable any person fully to exercise his right to an effective legal remedy, and, second, allow the courts before which actions are brought to do justice effectively, in the interest of all individuals. (see para. 53)