EN
ReportsofCases
ECLI:EU:T:2010 :111 1ORDER OF THE GENERAL COURT (Appeal Ch amber)
23 March 2010
Case T-16/09 P
Luigi M ar cuc cio
v
European Comm ission
(Appeal — Civil service — Officials — Reasonable time f or the submission o f a c laim for 
compe nsation — Lateness — Appeal in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded)
Appeal: against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (First Ch amber) in 
Case F-87/07 M arcuccio v C omm ission [2008 ] ECR-SC I- A-1-351 a nd II-A-1-1915 , 
seeking the annulment of that order.
Held: The appeal is dismissed. Mr Luigi Marcuccio is ordered to bear his own costs and to pay 
those incurred by the European Commission in the present case.
Summ ary
1. Appeals — Pleas in law — Inadequate statement of reasons
(Art. 225 EC; Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 36 a nd 53, first para.)
2. Officials — Actions — Request under Article 90(1) of the Staff Regulations
(Art. 236 EC; Staff Regulations, Art. 90(1))
3. Officials — Actions — Time-limits — Claim for compensation addressed t o an institution
(Art. 236 EC; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 46; Staff Regulations, Art. 90)
4. Officials — Actions — Time-limits — Claim for compensation addressed t o an institution — Duty to 
act within a r easonable time — Criteria for assess ment
(Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 46; Staff Regulations, Art. 90)
5. Procedure — Admissibility of pleadings — Assessed wh en pleading is submitted
(Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal, Art. 121)
6. Procedure — Time-limit for instituting proceedings — Service of application by registered p ost — 
Date of service setting time-limits running
(Rules o f Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal, Arts 39(1) and 100(1), first subpara., ( 2), third 
subpara., a nd (3))
2 ECLI:EU:T:2010 :111SUMM ARY—CASET-16/09P
MARCUCCIOvCOMM ISSION
1. The obligation t o state reasons does no t require the Civil Service Tribunal to provide an account 
which follows exhaustively and on e by on e all th e arguments put forward b y the parties to th e case 
and th e reasoning m ay therefore be implicit on c ondition th at it enables the pe rsons concerned to 
know why the Civil Service Tribunal has no t upheld th eir ar guments and provides the General Court 
with sufficient material for it to exercise its power of review.
(see paras 21, 38)
See:
C-294/00 P, C-205/00 P, C-211/00 P, C-213/00 P, C-217/00 P and C-219/00 P Aalborg Portland and O thers v 
Comm ission [2004 ] ECR I-123, para. 372 ; C-167/06 P K omninou and Others v C omm ission [2007 ] ECR I-141, para. 
22; C-385/07 P Der Grüne Punkt - D uales System D eutschland v C omm ission [2009 ] ECR I-6155 , p ara. 114
2. Where a di spute between an official and the institution b y which he is or was emp loyed concerning 
compe nsation f or damage originates in th e relationship of emp loyment between th at person a nd th e 
institution, it falls under Article 236 E C and Articles 90 a nd 91 o f the Staff Regulations.
The fact that Article 236 E C and Article 90 o f the Staff Regulations lay down no t ime-limit for the 
submission o f a c laim for compe nsation for damage does no t render unlawful the obligation to submit 
such a c laim w ithin a r easonable time. The application o f those provisions, in particular to a c laim for 
compe nsation f or da mage, must comply with th e principles of legal certainty and protection o f 
legitimate expectations, which are general principles of Community law. In the absence of any written 
rule, those general principles preclude institutions and natural or legal persons from acting without any 
time-limits, thereby th reatening, inter alia, to undermine th e stability of legal positions already 
acquired, and they require that action b e taken within a r easonable time.
Consequently, a c hallenge, beyond a r easonable time-limit, to an eve nt which resulted in da mage 
caused by th e Community in th e context of its relations with its staff affects the certainty of legal 
relations between th e Community and its staff and imposes on th e Community budget costs ari sing 
from a n operative eve nt which occurred too l ong ago. The principle of legal certainty th erefore 
requires th at staff claiming compe nsation a s a r esult of da mage allegedly caused to th em b y th e 
Community in th e context of their relations with it must submit their claims within a r easonable 
period.
(see paras 32-35)
See:
T-281/01 H uygens v C omm ission [2004 ] ECR-SC I- A-203 a nd II-903, para. 47 ; T-45/01 S anders and O thers v 
Comm ission [2004 ] ECR II- 3315 , para. 59; T-144/02 E agle and Others v C omm ission [2004 ] ECR II- 3381 , paras 57 
and 62; T-114/08 P M arcuccio v C omm ission [2009 ] ECR-SC I- B-1-53 a nd II-B-1-313, para. 12 a nd th e case-law 
cited therein
3. Where a di spute between an official and the institution b y which he is or was emp loyed concerning 
compe nsation f or damage originates in th e relationship of emp loyment between th at person a nd th e 
institution, it falls under Article 236 E C and no t Article 46 o f the Statute of the Court of Justice. The 
five-year limitation pe riod laid d own in th e latter provision is therefore no t the criterion for assessing 
the reasonableness of the time-limit at issue, but is at the very most a r elevant element of comparison 
in th at assessment, given th at that limitation pe riod is also designed to guarantee legal certainty in 
actions for damages brought against the Community. The fact that a c laim w as brought less th an five 
years from th e date when the persons concerned were apprised of the situation o f which they complain 
is therefore no t enough for that claim to be considered to have been brought w ithin a r easonable time.
ECLI:EU:T:2010 :111 3SUMM ARY—CASET-16/09P
MARCUCCIOvCOMM ISSION
(see para. 37)
See:
Eagle and Others v C omm ission, para. 68; Marcuccio v C omm ission, para. 12
4. The determination o f the time-limit for bringing an action f or da mages is a p oint of law. In th e 
absence of a t ime-limit laid d own in th e regulations applicable for bringing a c laim for compe nsation 
arising from th e emp loyment relationship between an official and th e institution b y which he is 
emp loyed, that claim m ust be brought w ithin a r easonable time, which is determined in th e light o f 
the circumstances of th e case. In th at respect, w hile th e C ivil Service T ribunal has exclusive 
jurisdiction t o establish and assess th e relevant facts except where those facts are clearly distorted, it 
then defines their legal nature with regard t o th e principle that decisions should be ad opted within a 
reasonable time, subject to review by the General Court.
(see para. 39)
See:
Marcuccio v C omm ission, para. 27
5. Procedural rules are generally held to apply to all disputes pending at the time w hen they enter into 
force. Furthermore, the ad missibility of an action is assessed at the time w hen it is brought, a nd th e 
admissibility o f other pleadings should b e assessed a t th e time w hen th ey ar e submitted. 
Consequently, it is in th e light o f the provisions of the Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service 
Tribunal, which came i nto force, pursuant to Article 121 o f those rules, on 1 November 2007 , that 
the ad missibility of a d efence lodged with th e Registry of the Civil Service Tribunal on a s ubsequent 
date must be assessed.
(see para. 59)
See:
212/80 to 217/80 M eridionale Industria Salumi and Others [2001 ] ECR 2735 , para. 9; 50/84 B ensider and Others v 
Comm ission [1984 ] ECR 3991 , para. 8; T-42/96 E yckeler & M alt v C omm ission [1998 ] ECR II- 401, para. 55 ; 
T-236/00 R II Stauner and Others v P arliament and Comm ission [2001 ] ECR II- 2943 , para. 49; T-25/04 G onzález y 
Díez v C omm ission [2007 ] ECR II- 3121 , para. 58 ; judgment of 3 April 2008 i n T -229/02 P KK v C ouncil, no t 
published in the ECR, para. 30
6. Where the Registry of the Civil Service Tribunal serves an application on a d efendant by registered 
post, th e da te of service w hich sets th e time-limits running is th at on w hich th e defendant 
acknowledged receipt of the registered letter addr essed to him.
(see paras 63-64)
See:
C-442/03 P and C-471/03 P P & O Eu ropean Ferries (Vizcaya) and Diputación Foral de V izcaya v C omm ission 
[2006 ] ECR I-4845 , para. 26