62011FO0006_EN
Parties
Grounds
Operative part
Parties
In Case F-6/11,
ACTION brought under Article 270 TFEU, applicable to the EAEC Treaty pursuant to Article 106a thereof,
M, a former member of the temporary staff of the European Medicines Agency, residing in Broxbourne (United Kingdom), represented by C. Thomann, Barrister, and I. Khawaja, Solicitor,
applicant,
v
European Medicines Agency (EMA),
represented by V. Salvatore and N. Rampal Olmedo, acting as Agents,
defendant,
THE CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL (First Chamber),
composed of S. Gervasoni, President, H. Kreppel (Rapporteur) and M.I. Rofes i Pujol, Judges,
Registrar: W. Hakenberg,
makes the following
Order
Grounds
1. By application lodged at the Registry of the General Court of the European Union on 16 March 2010, registered as Case T-136/10, M requests that the European Medicines Agency (EMA) be ordered to pay him damages for the loss which he allegedly sustained following an accident at work.
Facts, procedure and forms of order sought by the parties
2. The applicant, who entered the service of the EMA in London (United Kingdom) as a member of the temporary staff on 16 October 1996, sustained an accident at work on 17 March 2005, following which he went on sick leave.
3. The applicant’s contract with the EMA expired on 15 October 2006 and the EMA decided not to renew it.
4. The applicant received a payment of EUR 60 000 under the accident insurance scheme provided for in Article 73 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union (‘the Staff Regulations’) to compensate for the loss sustained as a result of the accident at work.
5. Being of the opinion that the EMA was responsible, under the general law, for the accident at work which he had sustained and that the benefits under the staff insurance scheme had not fully compensated for his loss, the applicant brought an action before the General Court of the European Union seeking that the EMA be ordered to pay him supplementary compensation.
6. By a document lodged at the Registry of the General Court of the European Union on 7 June 2010, the EMA raised an objection of inadmissibility under Article 114(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court of the European Union.
7. As the applicant was late in submitting his observations on that objection of inadmissibility in accordance with Article 43(6) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court of the European Union, those observations were not placed on the case-file.
8. By order of 20 January 2011 in Case T-136/10 M v EMA, the General Court of the European Union, finding that the action fell within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, referred the action to the Tribunal and reserved costs. As a result of that referral, the Tribunal has before it the claims initially made before the General Court of the European Union.
9. The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:
– order the EMA to pay him damages, in an amount which the Tribunal may rule to be appropriate, in compensation for the loss sustained as a result of the accident at work on 17 March 2005;
– order the EMA to pay him interest on the amount due at a rate equivalent to that applied pursuant to section 35A of the Supreme Court Act 1981 or such other sum as the Tribunal may rule to be appropriate;
– order the EMA to pay the costs;
– order such additional measures as the Tribunal may consider to be appropriate.
10. The EMA contends that the Tribunal should:
– dismiss the action as manifestly inadmissible;
– order the applicant to pay the costs.
Law
11. Under Article 76 of the Rules of Procedure, where an action is, in whole or in part, manifestly inadmissible, the Tribunal may, without taking further steps in the proceedings, give a decision by way of reasoned order.
12. Furthermore, although the EMA raised an objection of inadmissibility by way of a separate document, the Tribunal remains at liberty, if the inadmissibility of the action appears to it manifest, to adopt an order on the basis of Article 76 of the Rules of Procedure (order of 25 November 2009 in Case F-5/09 Soerensen Ferraresi v Commission, paragraph 14).
13. In the present case, the Tribunal considers that there is sufficient information before it and has decided, pursuant to Article 76 of the Rules of Procedure, to give a decision without taking further steps in the proceedings.
14. It is established that a staff member who suffers an accident is entitled to seek from the administration additional compensation where he or she considers that the administration is responsible for the accident under general law and that the staff insurance scheme established by Article 73 of the Staff Regulations does not allow for appropriate compensation (see, for example, judgment of 8 October 1986 in Joined Cases 169/83 and 136/84 Leussink v Commission, paragraph 13). However, in such a case, the administrative procedure which the staff member is required to follow in order to obtain such additional compensation must commence with the submission of a request within the meaning of Article 90(1) of the Staff Regulations seeking to obtain additional compensation, and must be followed, where necessary, by an administrative complaint directed against the decision rejecting the request.
15. In the present case, although the applicant, who claims that the accident at work which he sustained was the result of the alleged breach by the EMA of its obligation to adopt measures to ensure the health and safety of workers, requests the Tribunal to order the EMA to pay him compensation over and above that which he obtained on the basis of Article 73 of the Staff Regulations, the documents in the case-file disclose that the applicant did not submit any request to the EMA seeking such supplementary compensation.
16. Since the two-stage pre-litigation procedure laid down in Article 90 of the Staff Regulations was not complied with, the action must be dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.
Costs
17. Under Article 87(1) of the Rules of Procedure, without prejudice to the other provisions of Chapter 8 of Title 2 of those Rules, the unsuccessful party is to be ordered to pay the costs if t hey have been applied for in the successful party’s pleadings. Under Article 87(2), the Tribunal may, if equity so requires, decide that an unsuccessful party is to pay only part of the costs or even that he or she is not to be ordered to pay any.
18. It follows from the grounds of the present order that the applicant is the unsuccessful party. Furthermore, in its submissions the EMA has expressly claimed that the applicant should be ordered to pay the costs. Since the circumstances of the present case do not warrant the application of Article 87(2) of the Rules of Procedure, the applicant must therefore be ordered to pay the EMA’s costs.
Operative part
On those grounds,
THE CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL (First Chamber)
hereby orders:
1. The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.
2. M shall bear all the costs.
Luxembourg, 28 September 2011.