18

In that regard, the General Court, concerning the delimitation of jurisdiction between the General Court and the Civil Service Tribunal, held the following at paragraphs 47 to 53 of the judgment in Missir Mamachi di Lusignano v Commission (T‑401/11 P, EU:T:2014:625): ‘47 As EU law currently stands, that delimitation is based on the personal status of the [appellant] and on the origin of the dispute, in accordance with consistent case-law, according to which a dispute between an official and the institution by which he is or was employed is pursued, where it originates in the relationship of employment between the person concerned and the institution, under Article 270 TFEU (formerly Article 236 EC) and Articles 90 and 91 of the Staff Regulations and therefore lies outside the scope of Articles 268 TFEU (formerly Article 235 EC) and 340 TFEU (formerly Article 288 EC), which govern the general system of extra-contractual liability of the Union ([judgments in Meyer-Burckhardt v Commission, 9/75, EU:C:1975:131, paragraph 7; Reinarz v Commission and Council, 48/76, EU:C:1977:30, paragraph 10; and Allo and Others v Commission, 176/83, EU:C:1985:290, paragraph 18; order in Pomar v Commission, 317/85, EU:C:1987:267, paragraph 7; and judgment in Polinsky v Court of Justice, T‑1/02, EU:T:2004:298, paragraph 47]). 48 However, it is not possible to determine on the basis of that case-law whether it is before this Court or before the Civil Service Tribunal that the close relatives of the deceased official ought to have brought their claim for reparation for the personal damage, both material and non-material, which they claim to have suffered. Contrary to the Commission’s contention, that case-law specifically relates only to a dispute (i) between an official or former official and the institution by which he is or was employed and (ii) having its origin in the relationship of employment which exists or existed between them, and it is therefore capable of being applied by analogy only in part to a dispute which does indeed have its origin in the relationship of employment, but is not between an official or former official, but between a close third party — a member of his family or the successor to his rights — and the institution by which that official is or was employed. 49 If that third party succeeds to the rights of the official or former official concerned, and therefore if he acts as a person entitled to claim under that official, and claiming in that capacity, for the benefit of the estate, reparation for damage personal to the official himself, the case-law in question must be applied by analogy, since, notwithstanding the succession that has intervened, the dispute continues to be a dispute between an official and the institution by which he was employed, having its origin in the relationship of employment between them. 50 In the present case, that consideration applies in the case of the second head of damage claimed by the [appellant], as set out at paragraph 20 above, namely the ex haerede non-material damage suffered by the deceased official between the time when he was assaulted and the time of his death. To that extent, the Civil Service Tribunal was correct to state, in the last sentence of paragraph 116 of the judgment under appeal, that the case-law cited at paragraph 47 above could be applied by analogy to a dispute between the heirs and successors of a deceased official or their legal representative and the institution to which the official was answerable. 51 On the other hand, if that third party brings an action in order to obtain reparation for damage which is personal to him, whether that damage is material or non-material, such an application of that case-law by analogy is not justified either by the content of that case-law or by the fundamental considerations underlying it. Even if it is accepted that such a dispute originates in the relationship of employment between the official concerned and the institution, the subjective personal condition, linked to the status of official enjoying the rights in question, is in any event lacking and the Civil Service Tribunal therefore, in principle, lacks jurisdiction ratione personae to hear and determine the dispute under Article 270 TFEU and Articles 90 and 91 of the Staff Regulations. 52 Contrary to the Commission’s contention, the judgment in [Commission v Petrilli (T‑143/09 P, EU:T:2010:5310)] confirms that analysis and sets out its rationale. At paragraph 46 of that judgment, the Court held that proceedings relating to the civil service under Article 236 EC (now Article 270 TFEU) and Articles 90 and 91 of the Staff Regulations, including proceedings seeking reparation for damage caused to an official or other servant, obey particular rules that form a special category by reference to those deriving from the general principles governing the non-contractual liability of the Union in the context of Article 235 EC (now Article 268 TFEU) and Article 288 EC (now Article 340 TFEU). According to the General Court, where the Union acts as an employer, it is subject to increased liability, manifested in the obligation to make good damage caused to its staff by any illegality committed in that capacity, whereas, under the general law, it is required to make good only damage caused by a “sufficiently serious” breach of a rule of law (consistent case-law since the judgment in [Bergaderm and Goupil v Commission, C‑352/98 P, EU:C:2000;361]). 53 Those considerations relating to the particular and special system of the increased liability of the Union vis-à-vis its staff, justified in particular by the relationship of employment, with its specific rights and obligations such as the duty to have regard for the welfare of its staff, and by the relationship of trust that must exist between the institutions and their officials, in the general interest, are specifically lacking in the case of third parties who are not officials. Even in the case of the members of an official’s close family, and subject to the social benefits such as those referred to in Article 76 of the Staff Regulations, the case-law does not recognise the existence of a duty of care on the part of the institutions towards such third parties (judgment in [Leussink v Commission, 169/83 and 136/84, EU:C:1986:371], paragraphs 21 to 23).’