EN
ReportsofCases
ECLI:EU:F:2010 :21 1ORDER OF THE CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL
(First Ch amber)
25 March 2010
Case F-102/08
Luigi M ar cuc cio
v
European Comm ission
(Civil service — Officials — Dispatch of the applicant’s personal effects — Action for damages — 
Action m anifestly inadmissible — Action m anifestly unfounded in law — Article 94 o f the Rules 
of Procedure)
Application:brought u nder Articles 236 E C and 152 E A, in which M r Marcuccio seeks, principally, a 
declaration o f invalidity or, at the ve ry least, annulment of the Commission’s decision 
refusing to provide him w ith copies of the photographs taken during the dispatch of his 
effects from h is official lodgings in Luanda ( Angola) and to destroy all documents 
relating to th at dispatch, together with an order that the Commission c ompe nsate him 
for the da mage resulting from th e fact that it allegedly carried out that dispatch against 
his will.
Held: The applicant’s application is dismissed as, in part, m anifestly inadmissible and, in part, 
manifestly unfounded in law. The applicant is ordered to pay the costs. The applicant is 
ordered to reimburse to the Tribunal the sum of EUR 1 500.
Summ ary
1. Officials — Actions — Actions for damages — Claim for annulment of a p re-litigation de cision 
refusing a r equest for compensation
(Staff Regulations, Arts 90 a nd 91)
2. Acts of the institutions — Presumption of validity — Non-existent act — Definition
(Art. 249 CE)
3. Officials — Actions — Prior administrative complaint — Time-limits — Claim barred b y lapse of 
time — Reopening — Condition — New and material fact
(Staff Regulations, Arts 90 a nd 91)
1. An institution’s decision r ejecting a c laim f or compe nsation f orms an integral part of th e 
preliminary ad ministrative p rocedure which precedes an action t o establish liability before th e Civil 
Service Tribunal and, consequently, claims for annulment of it cannot be assessed in isolation f rom 
the claims relating to compe nsation.
2 ECLI:EU:F:2010 :21SUMM ARY—CASEF-102/08
MARCUCCIOvCOMM ISSION
(see para. 23)
See:
T-90/95 G ill v C omm ission [1997 ] ECR-SC I-A-471 a nd II-1231 , para. 45; T-77/99 O jha v C omm ission [2001 ] 
ECR-SC I-A-61 a nd II-293, para. 68; T-209/99 H oyer v C omm ission [2002 ] ECR-SC I-A-243 a nd II-1211 , para. 32
2. Only acts tainted by irr egularities which ar e particularly serious and obvious may be declared 
non-existent. The seriousness o f the consequences resulting from a d eclaration th at an act of an 
institution is non -existent demands that, for reasons of legal certainty, such a d eclaration b e reserved 
for the most extreme s ituations.
A decision o f the Commission r efusing to destroy documents which it has preserved on th e ground 
that they constitute a g uarantee enabling both th e official concerned and the institution itself to check 
that all the official’s effects were dispatched to his new residence does no t present any irr egularities of 
that nature.
(see paras 29, 32)
See:
1/57 a nd 14/57 So ciété des u sines à t ubes de l a Sarre v H igh Authority [1957 a nd 1958 ] ECR 105, 112 ; C-137/92 P 
Comm ission v B ASF and Others [1994 ] ECR I-2555 , para. 50; C-475/01 C omm ission v G reece [2004 ] ECR I-8923 , 
para. 20
3. Although Article 90(1) of the Staff Regulations provides that any official may request the appointing 
authority to take a d ecision r elating to him, that right d oes no t allow an official to set aside th e 
time-limits laid d own in Articles 90 a nd 91 o f the Staff Regulations for the lodging of a c omplaint and 
an appeal by indirectly calling in question b y me ans of a r equest a p revious decision w hich has no t 
been challenged within th e pe riod prescribed. Only the existence of material new facts may justify the 
submission o f a r equest for a r eview of such a d ecision.
(see para. 36)
See:
127/84 E sly v C omm ission [1985 ] ECR 1437 , para. 10