ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Appeal Chamber)

26 June 2009

Case T-114/08 P

Luigi Marcuccio

v

Commission of the European Communities

(Appeal – Civil service – Officials – Reasonable time for the submission of a claim for compensation – 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 Chamber) of 14 December 2007 in Case F-21/07 Marcuccio v Commission [2007] ECR-SC I-A-1-0000 and II‑A‑1‑0000, 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.

Summary

1. Officials – Actions – Procedural context – Article 236 EC and Articles 90 and 91 of the Staff Regulations – Time-limits

(Art. 236 EC; Staff Regulations, Arts 90 and 91)

2. Officials – Actions – Time-limits – Claim for compensation addressed to an institution – Duty to act within a reasonable time – Criteria for assessment

(Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 46; Staff Regulations, Art. 90)

3. Procedure – Decision taken by way of reasoned order – Conditions – Appeal manifestly inadmissible or manifestly lacking any legal basis

1. Where it originates in the employment relationship between the official concerned and the institution, a dispute between an official and an institution to which he belongs or belonged seeking compensation for harm falls within the scope of Article 236 EC and Articles 90 and 91 of the Staff Regulations, and, particularly as regards its admissibility, falls outside the scope of Article 235 EC, the second paragraph of Article 288 EC and Article 46 of the Statute of the Court of Justice. It follows that actions based on Article 236 EC are subject to the time-limits laid down in Articles 90 and 91 of the Staff Regulations, regardless of whether they seek annulment or compensation.

(see para. 12)

See: 9/75 Meyer-Burckhardt v Commission [1975] ECR 1171, para. 7; 48/76 Reinarz v Commission and Council [1977] ECR 291, para. 10; 174/83 Amman and Others v Council [1985] ECR 2133, para. 12; 175/83 Culmsee and Others v ESC [1985] ECR 2149, para. 12; 257/85 Dufay v Parliament [1987] ECR 1561, para. 21; 401/85 Schina v Commission [1987] ECR 3911, para. 9

2. The determination of the time-limit for bringing an action is a point of law. The applicable rules do not lay down any precise time-limit for bringing a claim for compensation arising from the employment relationship between an official and the institution to which he belongs. On the contrary, the time-limit for bringing a claim for compensation is determined in the light of the circumstances of the case, in accordance with the principle that action must be taken within a reasonable period, that is, the importance of the dispute for the person concerned, the complexity of the case, the conduct of the parties and, by way of guidance, reference to the time-limit in Article 46 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, which is regarded as a maximum. In that respect, although the Civil Service Tribunal has absolute discretion to find and assess the relevant facts, subject to any clear distortion of their sense, its legal characterisation of those facts then takes account of the principle that action must be taken within a reasonable period, under the review of the Court of First Instance.

(see paras 25-27)

3. The possibility provided for in Article 111 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance of giving a decision by reasoned order on an action which is manifestly inadmissible or manifestly lacking any foundation in law may be used even before submission of the defence, and the validity of its use is not to be assessed on the basis of the number of points raised in the order adopted.

(see para. 50)