Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Procedure – Originating application – Formal requirements – Identification of the subject-matter of the dispute – Brief summary of the pleas in law on which the application is based – Action for compensation for damage caused by a Community institution

(Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 21, first para., and 53, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 44(1)(c))

2. European ombudsman – Alternative to an action before the Community judicature – Not possible to pursue both remedies in parallel – Whether action before the Ombudsman appropriate a matter for the citizen to decide

(Art. 195(1) EC; Statute of the European Ombudsman, Arts 2(6) and 7)

3. Actions for damages – Subject-matter – Claim for recovery of lawyers’ fees incurred before the Ombudsman – Expenses not recoverable – Action manifestly unfounded

(Art. 235 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Arts 90 and 91(b))

Summary

1. Under the first paragraph of Article 21 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, applicable to the Court of First Instance by virtue of the first paragraph of Article 53 of that Statute and under Article 44(1)(c) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, all applications must contain the subject-matter of the dispute and a brief statement of the pleas in law on which the application is based. That statement must be sufficiently clear and precise to enable the defendant to prepare its defence and the Court to rule on the application, if necessary, without any further information. In order to guarantee legal certainty and sound administration of justice, it is necessary, in order for an action to be admissible, that the basic legal and factual particulars relied on be indicated, at least in summary form, coherently and intelligibly in the application itself.

In order to satisfy those requirements, an application seeking compensation for damage caused by a Community institution must state the evidence from which the conduct which the applicant alleges against the institution can be identified, the reasons for which the applicant considers that there is a causal link between the conduct and the damage it claims to have suffered, and the nature and extent of that damage.

(see paras 23-24)

2. In the institution of the European Ombudsman, the Treaty has given citizens of the Union an alternative remedy to that of an action before the Community Court in order to protect their interests. That alternative non-judicial remedy meets specific criteria and does not necessarily have the same objective as judicial proceedings.

Moreover, as is clear from Article 195(1) EC and Article 2(6) and (7) of Decision 94/262 on the regulations and general conditions governing the performance of the Ombudsman’s duties, the two remedies cannot be pursued at the same time. Although complaints submitted to the Ombudsman do not affect time-limits for appeals to the Community Court, the Ombudsman must nonetheless terminate consideration of a complaint and declare it inadmissible if the citizen simultaneously brings an appeal before the Community Court based on the same facts. It is therefore for the citizen to decide which of the two available remedies is likely to serve his interests best.

(see paras 47-48)

3. Under Article 91(b) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, recoverable costs are limited, first, to those incurred for the purposes of proceedings before the Court of First Instance and, second, to those necessary for those purposes. By ‘proceedings’ Article 91 of the Rules of Procedure refers only to proceedings before the Court of First Instance, to the exclusion of any prior stage.

In that regard, expenses incurred before the Ombudsman, and in particular lawyers’ fees, cannot be regarded as ‘expenses necessarily incurred’ within the meaning of the abovementioned provision. Unlike proceedings before the Community Courts, proceedings before the Ombudsman are designed in such a way as to make recourse to legal advice unnecessary. It suffices to set out the facts in the complaint and there is no need to set out any legal arguments. In those circumstances, a citizen’s free choice to be represented by a lawyer in proceedings before the Ombudsman implies that he must bear the costs himself.

Therefore, since those costs do not constitute expenses necessarily incurred within the meaning of Article 91(b) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, they are not recoverable by way of an action for damages.

(see paras 50, 52, 55)