ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Third Chamber)

5 February 1997

Case T-49/96

H

v

Commission of the European Communities

‛Officials — Action for damages — Plea of inadmissibility’

Full text in French II-83

Application for:

damages in respect of the material and non-material damage suffered by die applicant.

Decision:

Application inadmissible.

Abstract of the Order

On 13 September 1994, an Invalidity Committee, to which the applicant's case was referred by the Commission, held that the applicant was suffering from total permanent invalidity. On 27 September 1994, the appointing authority retired the applicant on medical grounds with effect from 1 October 1994. On 25 January 1995, when she went to collect her personal belongings, the applicant discovered that they had disappeared. By letter of 2 February 1995, the Commission acknowledged that they had been thrown away.

On 6 April 1995, the applicant applied for compensation of BFR 500000 in respect of the material and nonmaterial damage she claimed to have suffered as a result of the disappearance of her personal belongings. By letter of 12 June 1995, the Commission decided to pay the applicant BFR 50000, by way of compensation for the loss of the objects the values of which were set out in her letter of 6 April 1995, together with BFR 100000 by way of compensation for the loss of the other documents and her personal files, giving a total sum of BFR 150000.

Admissibility

In order to satisfy the requirements of Article 44(l)(c) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, an application for compensation in respect of damage caused by a Community institution must contain information making it possible to identify the allegedly wrongful act committed by the institution, the reasons why the applicant considers there to be a causal link between that act and the damage allegedly suffered and the nature and extent ofthat damage (paragraph 23).

See: T-56/92 Koelman v Commission [1993] ECR II-1267, para. 21; T-505/93 Osório v Commission [1994] ECRSC II-581, para. 33; T-387/94 Asia Motor France and Others v Commission [1996] ECR II-961, para. 106; T-53/96 Syndicat des producteurs de viande bovine de la coordination rurale and Others v Commission [1996] ECR II-1579, para. 22

The application lacks the necessary detail concerning the extent of the alleged material and nonmaterial damage. The material damage claimed is not quantified approximately or in an understandable manner in either the application or the complaint. Although, in certain circumstances, it is not essential for the application to state the precise extent of the damage and to provide a figure for the compensation claimed, the applicant in this case failed to establish that such circumstances exist. It is not for the Court of First Instance to attempt to extract from the pleadings and annexes, the pleas in law and arguments which might justify the lack of detail concerning the extent of the material damage in the application. As regards the nonmaterial damage, that is pleaded only in general terms, with no details of its extent or nature (paragraphs 24 to 26).

See: T-85/92 De Hoe v Commission [1993] ECR II-523. para. 22; T-112/94 Moat v Commission [1995] ECRSC II-135, para. 37

Furthermore, on the basis of the application, the Court of First Instance is not in a position to determine whether the applicant is justified in claiming that the compensation of BFR 150000 granted to her by the Commission are actually inadequate (paragraph 27).

See: T-130/95 X v Commission [1996] ECRSC II-1609, para. 85

Operative part:

The application is dismissed as inadmissible.