ORDER OF THE CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL

(First Chamber)

25 November 2009

Case F-11/09

Luigi Marcuccio

v

Commission of the European Communities

(Civil service – Officials – Social security – Sickness insurance – Rejection of requests for reimbursement of medical expenses)

Application: brought under Articles 236 EC and 152 EA, in which Mr Marcuccio seeks in particular, first, annulment of the Commission’s decisions rejecting, first, his request of 27 December 2007 for reimbursement at the normal rate of various medical expenses and, second, his request of 27 December 2007 seeking supplementary, i.e. 100%, reimbursement of the same medical expenses; second, annulment of the Commission’s decision of 16 October 2008 rejecting his complaint of 17 June 2008 against those decisions; third, an order that the Commission pay him, by way of 100% reimbursement of those expenses, the sum of EUR 356.18, or such other sum as the Tribunal may consider just and equitable, together with interest at the rate of 10% per annum, with annual capitalisation from a date which the Tribunal considers appropriate.

Held: The action is dismissed in part as manifestly lacking any legal basis and in part as manifestly inadmissible. The applicant is ordered to bear the costs.

Summary

1. Officials – Decision adversely affecting an official – Obligation to state the reasons on which the decision is based – Scope – Request for reimbursement of medical expenses – Official having not received all the accounts issued by the Settlements Office

(Staff Regulations, Art. 25, second para.)

2. Officials – Actions – Acts adversely affecting an official – Confirmatory measure – Exclusion – Procedure – Objection of lis pendens

(Staff Regulations, Arts 72(1), 90 and 91)

1. A decision rejecting a request for reimbursement of medical expenses contains an adequate statement of reasons where it informs the official of how his request was processed and the factual and legal reasons justifying the recovery, by the European Communities sickness insurance scheme, of the advances he had been paid. Even if he did not receive all the calculations when they were drawn up, the official concerned was given an opportunity to assess whether it was appropriate to initiate proceedings before the Community courts when the missing calculations were attached to the decision rejecting his complaint.

Furthermore, and in any event, even if such a rejection decision did not contain an adequate statement of reasons, it would have to be regarded as containing at the very least the initial elements of such a statement, enabling the institution to provide additional information during the proceedings and to fulfil its obligation to state the reasons for its decision.

(see paras 53, 58-59)

See:

T-37/89 Hanning v Parliament [1990] ECR II‑463, paras 41 and 44

2. A decision rejecting a request for 100% payment of medical expenses which does not contain any new factors compared with an identical request previously rejected and having been the subject of an action before the Community courts does not alter the applicant’s legal position and therefore does not constitute an act adversely affecting him within the meaning of Articles 90 and 91 of the Staff Regulations.

Even if such a decision could be regarded as a measure confirming the first decision, and thus as indissociable from that decision and to that extent capable of having an adverse effect, the Community court hearing an action against that decision should observe, of its own motion, that the action involves the same parties, has the same purpose and is based on the same grounds. In such circumstances the action would be manifestly inadmissible on the grounds of lis pendens.

(see paras 67-68)

See:

58/72 and 75/72 Perinciolo v Council [1973] ECR 511, paras 3 to 5; 172/83 and 226/83 Hoogovens Groep v Commission [1985] ECR 2831, para. 9

Judgment of 14 June 2007 in T-68/07 Landtag Schleswig-Holstein v Commission, not published in the ECR, para. 16; judgment of 9 July 2008 in T-296/05 and T-408/05 Marcuccio v Commission, not published in the ECR, paras 47 to 49, on appeal before the Court of Justice, Case C‑432/08 P; T-143/08 Marcuccio v Commission [2008] ECR-SC I‑A‑2‑0000 and II‑A‑2‑0000, paras 39 to 41, on appeal before the Court of Justice, Case C‑513/08 P; T-144/08 Marcuccio v Commission [2008] ECR-SC I‑A‑1‑0000 and II‑A‑1‑0000, paras 32 to 34, on appeal before the Court of Justice, Case C‑528/08 P

F-80/06 Duyster v Commission [2008] ECR-SC I‑A‑1‑0000 and II‑A‑1‑0000, para. 52; F-73/08 Marcuccio v Commission [2009] ECR-SC I‑A‑1‑0000 and II‑A‑1‑0000, para. 61, on appeal before the Court of First Instance, Case T‑311/09 P