Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1 Procedure - Application initiating proceedings - Procedural requirements - Subject-matter of the dispute to be indicated - Pleas in law relied upon to be briefly stated - Application claiming compensation for damage caused by a Community institution - Where the application does not quantify the damage but indicates the evidence on the basis of which it can be assessed - Whether admissible - Condition - Non-material damage

(EC Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 19, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 44(1)(c))

2 Non-contractual liability - Conditions - Illegality - Damage - Causal link - Burden of proof

(EC Treaty, Art. 215, second para. (now Art. 288, second para., EC))

3 Non-contractual liability - Conditions - Special report of the Court of Auditors - Whether defamatory - Not defamatory - Liability not incurred

(EC Treaty, Art. 188C(2), first and fourth subparas (now, after amendment, Art. 248(2), first and fourth subparas, EC))

Summary

1 Under the first paragraph of Article 19 of the EC Statute of the Court of Justice and Article 44(1)(c) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, all applications are to indicate the subject-matter of the dispute and briefly state the pleas in law relied upon. This must be done with clarity and precision so that the defendant is able to prepare its defence and the Court can rule on the application, if necessary, without any further information. In order to guarantee legal certainty and sound administration of justice, it is necessary, for an action to be admissible, that the basic legal and factual particulars relied on be indicated, at least in summary form, coherently and intelligibly in the application itself. To satisfy those requirements, an application seeking compensation for damage allegedly caused by a Community institution must state the evidence from which the conduct which the applicant alleges against the institution can be identified, the reasons for which the applicant considers that there is a causal link between the conduct and the damage it claims to have suffered, and the nature and extent of that damage.

Although a claim for an unspecified form of damages is not sufficiently concrete and must therefore be regarded as inadmissible, that is not the position where the application clearly indicates the evidence on the basis of which the nature and extent of the alleged damage can be assessed. Despite the fact that the loss has not been quantified, the defendant institution is thus able to defend itself and the Court is in a position to give judgment in the action. In those circumstances, the lack of figures in the application does not affect the rights of the defence, especially if the figures are produced in the reply, so that the defendant can discuss them both in the rejoinder and at the hearing.

A claim for compensation for non-material damage, whether as symbolic reparation or as genuine compensation, must specify the nature of the damage alleged, in relation to the wrongful conduct imputed to the institution in question, and must quantify the entirety of the damage, albeit approximatively.

2 For the Community to incur liability under the second paragraph of Article 215 of the Treaty (now Article 288, second paragraph, EC), the applicant must prove not only the illegality of the conduct alleged against the institution concerned and the fact of the damage, but also the existence of a causal link between that conduct and the damage complained of. Moreover, the damage must be a sufficiently direct consequence of the conduct complained of.

3 Where, in the course of its duties, the Court of Auditors discovers grave malfunctions seriously affecting the lawfulness and regularity of revenue and expenditure or the requirements of sound financial management, it must report them. The assessments made in its annual report or in special reports on third parties directly involved are fully subject to review by the Court of First Instance. They may constitute maladministration and thus give rise, where appropriate, to non-contractual liability on the part of the Community, if either the facts reported are not substantively correct or the interpretation placed on facts which are substantively correct is erroneous or one-sided.

That is not the position where the Court of Auditors reports a conflict of interests involving the award by the Community of public contracts. A conflict of interests constitutes, objectively and in itself, a serious irregularity without there being any need to qualify it by having regard to the intentions of the parties concerned and whether they were acting in good or bad faith, or to establish that it caused quantifiable material injury.