EN
ReportsofCases
ECLI:EU:T:2010 :403 1ORDER OF THE GENERAL COURT (Appeal Ch amber)
15 September 2010
Case T-157/09 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)
Application:lodged against the order of the European Union C ivil Service Tribunal (First Ch amber) of 
18 February 2009 i n Case F-42/08 M arcuccio v C omm ission [2009 ] ECR-SC I- A-1-35 
and II-A-1-147, seeking the annulment of that order.
Held: The appeal is dismissed. Mr Luigi Marcuccio is to bear h is own costs and pay th ose 
incurred by the European Commission in the present proceedings.
Summ ary
1. Procedure — Application initiating proceedings — Formal requirements
(Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 21, first para., a nd 53, first para.; Ru les of Procedure of the General 
Court, Art. 138(1))
2. Officials — Actions — Request under Article 90(1) of the Staff Regulations — Time-limit for 
submission
(Art. 236 EC; Staff Regulations, Arts 90 a nd 91)
3. Officials — Actions — Time-limits — Claim for compensation addressed t o an institution
(Art. 236 E C; 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
(Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 46; Staff Regulations, Art. 90)
5. Procedure — Time-limit for instituting proceedings — Service of application by registered p ost
(Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal, Arts 39(1) and 100(3))
1. Under the first paragraph of Article 21 o f the Statute of the Court of Justice, which applies to th e 
procedure before the General Court pursuant to th e first paragraph of Article 53 o f that Statute, and 
Article 138(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, th e application initiating proceedings 
must, inter alia, contain a s ummary of the pleas in law on w hich it is based. It must accordingly 
specify the nature of the grounds on w hich th e action is based, so th at a me re abstract statement of
2 ECLI:EU:T:2010 :403SUMM ARY—CASET-157/09P
MARCUCCIOvCOMM ISSION
 the grounds will no t satisfy the requirements of the Statute or the Rules of Procedure. Moreover, that 
summary — albeit concise — m ust be sufficiently clear and precise to enable the defendant to prepare 
its defence and the General Court to rule on th e action, if necessary, without any further information.
In order to ensure legal certainty and the sound ad ministration o f justice, it is necessary — if an action 
or, more specifically, a p lea in law, is to be ad missible — th at the basic legal and factual particulars 
relied on b e indicated coherently and intelligibly in th e application itself. In th at regard, it is no t the 
task of the General Court to search th rough all th e matters relied on i n support of a f irst plea in 
order to ascertain whether those matters could also be used in support of a s econd plea.
(see para. 27)
See:
order of 23 M outfort 2010 i n T-16/09 P M arcuccio v C omm ission, para. 15 a nd the case-law cited therein
2. A di spute between an official and an institution t o which he belongs or belonged, the purpose of 
which is to seek compe nsation f or da mage, falls within th e scope, where it originates from th e 
emp loyment relationship between th e official and th e institution, of Article 236 E C (the content of 
which is identical to that of Article 270 T FEU) 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 do no t fix any time-limit for 
bringing a c laim for compe nsation f or damage does no t make it unlawful to require such a c laim to 
be brought w ithin a r easonable pe riod. Those provisions must be applied, particularly in respect of a 
claim for compe nsation f or da mage, in accordance with th e principles of legal certainty and th e 
protection o f legitimate expectations, which are general principles of Union law. In the absence of any 
statutory rule, those general principles prevent the institutions and natural or legal persons from being 
able to act without any time-limits, thereby threatening, inter alia, to undermine the stability of legal 
positions already acquired, and they require the observance of a r easonable period.
Consequently, a c hallenge, beyond a r easonable pe riod, to an eve nt giving rise to da mage caused by a 
European institution in its relations with its staff affects the certainty of legal relations between th at 
institution a nd its staff and imposes on th e European Union b udget costs ari sing from an operative 
event which occurred too long ago. The principle of legal certainty therefore requires that staff should 
submit claims for compe nsation w ithin a r easonable period following da mage allegedly caused to them 
by a E uropean institution in the context of their relations with th at institution.
(see paras 40-43)
See:
T-144/02 E agle and Others v C omm ission [2004 ] ECR II- 3381 , para. 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 th erein; T-16/09 P M arcuccio v C omm ission, para. 
34 a nd the case-law cited therein
3. A di spute between an official and an institution t o which he belongs or belonged, the purpose of 
which is to seek compe nsation f or da mage, falls within th e scope, where it originates from th e 
emp loyment relationship between th e official and th e institution, of Article 236 E C and no t of 
Article 46 o f the Statute of the Court of Justice. The requirement of five years laid d own in Article 46 
is therefore no t the criterion f or assessing whether the time-limit for bringing th e proceedings in 
question i s reasonable, but constitutes at th e m ost a r elevant element of comparison i n th at 
assessment, given that that limitation pe riod is also designed to guarantee legal certainty in actions for
ECLI:EU:T:2010 :403 3SUMM ARY—CASET-157/09P
MARCUCCIOvCOMM ISSION
 damages brought against the European Union. Consequently, the fact that a c laim w as brought w ithin 
less th an five years of the pe rsons concerned being apprised of the situation o f which they complain is 
not sufficient to consider that that claim w as brought w ithin a r easonable period.
(see para. 45)
See:
T-16/09 P M arcuccio v C omm ission, para. 37 a nd the case-law cited therein
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 any time-limit in th e rules applicable for bringing a c laim for da mages ari sing from th e 
emp loyment relationship between an official and the institution t o which he belongs, that claim m ust 
be brought w ithin a r easonable pe riod, which is determined in th e light o f the circumstances of the 
case. In th at respect, while the Civil Service Tribunal has absolute discretion t o find and assess th e 
relevant facts, provided th at th ere is no c lear di stortion o f th eir sense, its subsequent legal 
characterisation o f those facts in th e light o f the principle of observance of a r easonable pe riod is 
subject to review by the General Court.
(see para. 47)
See:
T-16/09 P M arcuccio v C omm ission, para. 39 a nd the case-law cited therein
5. Where the Registrar o f the Civil Service Tribunal serves no tice of proceedings on th e defendant by 
registered post, th e da te of service which sets th e time-limits running is th e da te on w hich th e 
defendant acknowledges receipt of the registered letter addr essed to him.
(see paras 69-70)
See:
T-16/09 P M arcuccio v C omm ission, para. 64 a nd the case-law cited therein