ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Third Chamber)

15 February 1995

Case T-112/94

Andrew Macrae Moat

v

Commission of the European Communities

‛Officials — Action for annulment — Pre-litigation procedure — Interest in bringing proceedings — Action for damages — Summary of the pleas in law on which the application is based — Inadmissibility’

Full text in English II-135

Application for:

annulment of the Commission's failure to clarify the applicant's duties or give him work and for damages.

Decision:

Application dismissed.

Abstract of the Order

The applicant considered that he had not been given any work for several months and, by note dated 5 March 1993, asked the Commission to clarify his responsibilities and to compensate him for the way in which he had been treated.

In a note dated 10 September 1993, the applicant complained that the Commission had failed to reply to his first note and asked for compensation.

The Commission replied that it considered it had discharged its duties towards the applicant and did not owe him any compensation.

Admissibility

The claim for annulment

The Court pointed out that Articles 90 and 91 of the Staff Regulations make the admissibility of an action brought by an official conditional on the proper observance of the preliminary administrative procedure. If the official wishes the institution to take a decision relating to him, he or she must open the administrative procedure by a request to that effect. Only against a decision rejecting that request may the person concerned submit a complaint to the administration (paragraph 20).

See: 16/86 G.P. v Economic and Social Committee [1987] ECR 2409, para. 6; T-14/91 Weyrich v Commission [1991] ECR II-235, para. 32

The note dated 5 March 1993 is to be inteipreted as a mere request for information and cannot be regarded as a formal request for a decision by the administration which produces legal effects as in Article 90(1) of the Staff Regulations (paragraph 22).

See: T-135/89 Pfloeschner v Commission [1990] ECR II-153, para. 16

Consequently, the note of 10 September 1993 complaining of the Commission's failure to respond to the note of 5 March 1993 cannot be regarded as a complaint against a failure to adopt a measure prescribed by the Staff Regulations within the meaning of Article 90(2) (paragraph 23).

The fact that the applicant described his note of 5 March 1993 as a request and that of 10 September 1993 as a complaint is of no relevance since such classification is a matter for appraisal by the Court alone and is not determined by the intention of the parties (paragraph 24).

See: T-38/91 Coussios v Commission [1991] ECR II-763, para. 25

Since it was not preceded by a proper preliminary administrative procedure, the claim for annulment is inadmissible (paragraph 25).

See: T-34/91 Whitehead v Commission [1992] ECR II-1723, para. 18

In any event, the applicant, having retired, may no longer effectively lay claim to a change of duties and thus no longer has any interest in bringing an action for annulment (paragraph 26).

See: T-20/89 Moritz v Commission [1990] ECR II-769, para. 16

The claim for damages

Bearing in mind that, where a close link exists between the two claims, the inadmissibility of the claim for annulment entails the inadmissibility of the claim for damages, the Court considers that, even if it is accepted either that the claim for damages is not sufficiently closely linked to the claims for annulment already examined for the sake of completeness, or that the application is to be regarded as containing only a claim for damages, that claim must in any event be dismissed as inadmissible (paragraphs 30 and 31).

See: 33/80 Aibini v Council and Commission [1981] ECR 2141, para. 18; T-3/92 Latham v Commission [1994] ECRSC II-83, para. 37

In so far as it seeks unspecified compensation, the claim for damages is insufficiently precise, since the applicant was unable to define the specific conduct of the institution which he considered to have been the direct cause of the alleged material and nonmaterial damage (paragraphs 32 and 33).

See: 5/71 Zuckerfabrik Schòppenstedtv Council[1971] ECR 975, para. 9; T-64/89 Automec v Commission [1990] ECR II-367, para. 73; T-505/93 Osório v Commission [1994] ECRSC II-581, para. 33

It follows that there is a prima facie absence of any immediately apparent demonstration of a causal link between the conduct of the institution and the alleged damage (paragraph 34).

Furthermore, the applicant is merely alleging the existence of damage in very vague and general terms, without quantifying that damage and without giving a sufficiently precise indication of the facts from which its nature and extent might be assessed (paragraph 35).

The material damage alleged could quite easily have been quantified when the ‘complaint’ was submitted and the applicant has not established in his application the existence of special circumstances exempting him from the need to specify the exact extent of the damage and to state the amount of compensation sought (paragraphs 36 and 37).

See: Automec, cited above, paras 75 to 77; Osório, cited above, para. 35

Quite apart from the complete absence of any quantification of the nonmaterial damage claimed, in so far as that damage can be distinguished from the alleged material damage, the applicant has not placed the Court in a position to assess the extent or character of that damage, particularly in view of his lack of precision as regards the allegedly wrongful conduct of the defendant institution. Whether a symbolic reparation or true compensation is claimed, it is for the applicant to specify the nature of that damage in relation to the conduct or acts of the Commission of which he complains and then to quantify, even approximately, the amount thereof (paragraph 38).

Operative part:

The application is dismissed as inadmissible.