ORDER OF THE EUROPEAN UNION CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL

(Third Chamber)

5 March 2014

Case F‑77/13

DC

v

European Police Office (Europol)

(Civil service — Europol staff — Invalidity — Invalidity allowance — Calculation of interest — Application for damages — Manifest inadmissibility)

Application: under Article 270 TFEU, in which DC seeks, essentially, an order that the European Police Office (Europol) pay him the interest which he considers payable on the sums paid in respect of his partial permanent invalidity.

Held: The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible. DC is to bear his own costs and is ordered to pay the costs incurred by the European Police Office.

Summary

1. Judicial proceedings — Admissibility of actions — Lodging of a plea of inadmissibility — Tribunal’s freedom to adopt an order on the basis of Article 76 of the Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal

(Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal, Arts 76 and 78)

2. Officials — Social security — Insurance against the risk of accident and of occupational disease — Invalidity allowance for accident — Improper handling of the file of a member of Europol’s staff — Claim for compensatory interest — Applicable rules

(Europol Staff Regulations, Art. 57)

3. Actions brought by officials — Act adversely affecting an official — Definition — Breakdown for information purposes of sums payable to the applicant on account of his invalidity — Not included

(Staff Regulations of Officials, Arts 90 and 91; Europol Staff Regulations, Art. 57)

4. Actions brought by officials — Prior administrative complaint — Action brought before expiry of the time-limit for responding to the complaint — Inadmissibility

(Staff Regulations of Officials, Arts 90 and 91; Europol Staff Regulations, Art. 93(2))

1. Even where the defendant has raised a plea of inadmissibility in a separate document on the basis of Article 78 of the Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal, and where the applicant has submitted observations on that plea, the Tribunal remains at liberty, if the inadmissibility of the action appears manifest, to adopt an order on the basis of Article 76 of those rules.

(see para. 27)

See:

30 October 2008, F‑48/08 Ortega Serrano v Commission, para. 23

2. An application submitted by a Europol staff member for the payment of compensatory interest on the capital paid under Article 57 of the Europol Staff Regulations, in compensation for faults committed by Europol in dealing with his invalidity file and the resulting delay, must be regarded as the submission of a claim for damages, in line with the common rules governing the application of non-contractual liability.

(see para. 30)

See:

15 December 1999, T‑300/97 Latino v Commission, para. 99

3. A breakdown of the sums payable in respect of the partial permanent invalidity of a Europol staff member under Article 57 of the Europol Staff Regulations, which is purely for information and is presented in the form of a simple table from an authority not proven to have acted on behalf of the Europol Director, may not be regarded as an act adversely affecting that staff member which is capable of bringing about a distinct change in his legal position.

(see para. 37)

4. Pursuant to Article 93(2) of the Europol Staff Regulations, an appeal may lie only if, in particular, a complaint against the decision which the applicant seeks to have annulled has first been rejected by express decision or by implied decision, so that an appeal filed before the adoption or drawing up of such a decision is premature and, as such, inadmissible.

(see para. 39)

See:

7 February 1991, T‑18/89 and T‑24/89 Tagaras v Court of Justice, paras 50 and 51